3/11 Interest rate going below 0%? Is that silly or what?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23547244/page/2
\_ yeah its silly. Other stuff can happen that they dont mention
in that article, especially since the circumstances look distrubingly
like current environment. See, for example
in that article, especially since the circumstances look
distrubingly like current environment. See, for example
disturbingly like current environment. See, for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap

3/8 The median household earned $48,201 in 2006, down from $49,244 in 1999,
according to the Census Bureau. It now looks as if a full decade
may pass before most Americans receive a raise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/business/08recession.html
\_ It's ok, the tech industry is immune to a recession!
Here's a personal data: I JUST GOT A RAISE! So, there!
I'm sure those in the construction and blue collar industry
aren't doing so well. But if you're Berkeley educated, there's
no reason why you should be worried about a frigging RECESSION.
\_ proof positive they all should have bought a house in 1999 </joking>
\_ That's no joke. --bought in 99, doing great
\_ Is your household income 48k? If so, which of Idaho, Nebraska,
or Wisconson do you live in?
\_ Is your household income 48k? If so, which of Idaho,
Nebraska, or Wisconson do you live in?
\_ you might want to look up the term "median"
\_ You might want to look at the subject of the post.
\_ What about it?

3/4 Um, holy crap?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2f8nqd (cnn.com)
\_ http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/03/bernanke-to-lenders-reduce-principal.html
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/36bxx3 (calculatedrisk.blogspot.com)
Insert theme from your favorite horror movie here.
\_ Serious does this mean homes will be affordable
again? Seriously? Man I can't wait -bitter missed out guy
\_ Affordable is relative. The price of the home isn't nearly
as important as your monthly payment on it and how long you
have to pay that number.
\_ This makes absolute sense esp. for ppl with low IQs.
The rate at which home prices balloon or sink...
where do you take that into consideration? The
affordability index has been shrinking for the last
15 years, and given a historical cyclical market
isn't it prudent to wait for the other side of the
cycle? I mean, affordability is relative, but that
should not be the only factor used in such a
complex and expensive decision.
\_ And the final variable would be the interest rate. Thanks
for the math lesson. WTF are you trying to say?
\_ He's saying that if the interest rate doubles while
prices fall in half it doesn't make housing much more
affordable for people who are financing the purchase.
Maybe that's clear to you, but a lot of people seem
to overlook that the payment means more than the price
in many instances.
\_ People are supposed to save up a significant
downpayment, if banks are being responsible.
Prices should matter in the real world. In
fantasy bubble land where government saves the
day maybe it doesn't matter.
\_ No. This means that the shit that has been hitting the fan
for the last year is going to continue to hit the fan.
In fact, some of the shit that hit it already is going to
circle back for a few more wacks.
\_ If many homeowners are experiencing "shit hitting
the fan" doesn't it imply all the spectators will soon
be in a position to cherry pick shit soon?
\_ Not if the economy gets totally fucked by the housing
crisis. Hence the horror movie soundtrack, etc...
\_ We won't hit bottom until people think real estate
is dead. As long as there are a lot of spectators
thinking they are going to cherry pick we won't get
there. Serious investors aren't worried about
predicting a bottom. They bought 20 years ago, 10
years ago, 5 years ago, 2 years ago, and last week
- but they bought what made sense to buy. Finding
bargains might be getting easier, but financing what
you find is tougher meaning that only the all-cash
guys (you know, the pros) can stay in.
\_ Yes, this is exactly true. However, SFH have been
mostly financed by fairy dust the last few years,
so they are going to have the furthest to fall. Not
to say that the credit crunch won't hit multi-famliy
and commercial real estate, I am sure it will, but
the valuations are not as out of whack.
\_ I've paid my mortgage on time every month for years. Who is going
to 'fix' my loan so I don't have to pay so much anymore?
\_ One word for you: SUCKER!
\_ Obviously I should have defaulted then the gvt would have
rescued me from my own stupidity because clearly I would have
been a "victim" of a "predatory" loan. sigh. I need a nanny
state law passed to take care of me, too!
\_ Did you even read the article?
\_ Yes. I read both links. Did you?
\_ Yes. Where did you make the logical leap from a
voluntary agreement between a bank and a home owner
to a gvt bailout?

2/28 I just found out N Korea has been printing superbills in an attempt
to devaluate American dollars. What's scary about this is that
the superbills are indistinguishable from real printed money.
That is so fucked up. Damn you Kim Jong Il!
\_ I doubt he was doing it just to devaluate US dollars. It's not
like he couldn't use the money.
\_ BTW, does counterfeiting one currency have any effect on other
currencies other than the exchange rates against the counterfeited
currency?
\- pakistan also counterfitted INR 500Rs rupee notes.
i think it most you can cause problem in a small area.
like this led to Rs 500 rupee notes not being accepted in
nepal, but not that big a problem all over.
\_ Probably more for the desperately needed foreign goods than
to devalue the dollar.
\_ They should start running the African Nigerian scam with a
N Korea twist. They can profit from dumb ass greedy Americans
while teaching Americans a lesson.

2/19 http://tinyurl.com/2ymrrc (yahoo.com)
GOOG filing warns on near-revenue growth on reduction of accidental
clickthroughs
\_ Wow. I didn't know they were making money from deceiving click
regions.
\_ the monkey wants to be clicked

2/14 Full-time and summer internship jobs available at Bain Capital.
Use CS to invest in stocks/bonds/commodities/etc.
Postings at http://tinyurl.com/3blwm2 and http://tinyurl.com/2tqe8c
\_ Isn't this Mitt Romney's company?
\_ Can I use my CS skills to assfuck school districts for phat bonus?
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Survival of the fittest
ba-by!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ay5LDbjbjy6chttp://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1202912760.php
\_ does it matter?
\_ Yes.
\_ Why? Where do you work that isn't involved in some way
with someone you don't like?
\_ There are lots of places to work that don't have
upper management I dislike. Your argument is silly.
So I should work at a company run by Charles Manson
because where can I "work that isn't involved in
some way with someone [I] don't like?"
\_ So you're equating Charles Manson with Mitt Romney?
And you call me silly? We're done here.
\_ I'm just taking your argument to the extreme
to point out how ridiculous it is. I mean,
I may as well work with Manson because where
can I work that isn't involved with someone I
dislike? I never equated Romney with Manson
other than to say I dislike them both.

2/6 I want to open up a money market account, and I'm debating between
an ING Direct acct and a ETrade one. Which one is preferable?
Should I just go with the ETrade acct since it offers 4.4%
interest (vs. the 3.4% offered by ING)? Thanks.
\_ Are you worried about ETrade going belly up?
\_ Go for Etrade, and when their rate tanks switch to another service.
ING Direct has really low rates, I no longer use them. Make sure to
check out other services like Emigrantdirect, GMAC, IndyMac, etc.
I'd stick to Etrade since they're well established and their teaser
rates (currently 4.4%) seem to last longer than any of the other
places. Good luck and tell us what you ended up deciding!
\_ I like GMAC because transactions post very quickly, you can
write checks from the account, they have ATM fee reimbursements,
and their rate is almost always quite competitive.

2/1 Facebook finances leaked
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/31/facebook-finances-leaked
Losses for 2007: $50 million
Projected losses for 2008: $150 million
dans, over to you
\_ bubble 2.0
\_ Possibly. I've never said different. IMO it's good to be a geek
during a tech bubble. -dans
during a tech bubble. Let me amend that. It's good to be a
geek in a tech bubble if you're not greedy. -dans
\_ why?
\_ Is there a point you're trying to make? I should note that the
figures you link to don't indicate a loss in 2007, and referring to
figures handed to the press on a silver platter as a leak is silly.
-dans
\_ YHBT

1/25 "The general process of suburbanization is, the richer you are, the more
likely you move to the suburbs," says Julie Martin, a senior demographer
for the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of
Virginia.
\_ Why does JFK junior live in NYC?
\_ He lives with the worms, now.
\_ Obviously true in the DC area, obvioiusly false in most of the
world.
\_ Yes, because a motd anecdote is superior to a researcher at
a university. If you look at the wealthiest areas in the US
in terms of income they are almost all, if not all, suburbs.
\_ No, the wealthiest areas in the US and world are in cities.
\_ No, the wealthiest areas in the US and the world are in cities.
See Pac Heights, The Upper East Side, Kensington in London,
The First Addrosmont (sic?) in Paris, etc. In the Bay Area
The 7th Arrondissement in Paris, etc. In the Bay Area
\- dont you mean the 8e/triangle d'or. --psb
per capita income is as follows:
Marin - 44.9k
San Mateo - 36k
SF - 34.5k
CoCo - 30.6k
Alameda - 26.7k
\_ See, Marin is wealthier than SF.
\_ So is San Mateo. The data does not say what he
thinks it says.
\_ And Alameda county is really urban, not suburban and\
CoCo County is just an outlier. Right?
\_ What does that make SF besides 3rd choice?
\_ Does the evidence presented support or refute
the statement "The wealthier you are, the more
likely you are to live in the suburbs?" Hint:
what is the contrapostiive of that statement?
what is the contrapositive of that statement?
\_ There isn't enough evidence to refute
anything without providing some more
data like population figures. Are the
numbers you gave medians or averages?
What is the margin of error? Fact is
the wealthiest communities in the nation
are suburban, not urban. Even your
stats show that.
\_ It actually depends on what you mean
by the word "communities" actually.
Is a county synomymous with community?
\_ It depends on what you mean by the
word "communities." Is a county
synomymous with community?
\_ It can be and in most of the
country it is. CA has some
massive counties where it might
not be true, but SF is not one of
those.
\_ More like, true to a certain extent based on economic migration
patterns in cities like NYC and Detroit; tends to break down
after a certain economic level and depends heavily on how
attractive inner-city neighborhoods are in a given city.
\_ http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/076903.html
It is more complicated than that. The wealthy and the poor tend
to both move to the suburbs, for differing reasons.

1/23 Need retirement savings advice: if I had the foresight to move from
market index funds into treasuries at DJIA 14K, and put them back into
market index funds at DJIA 12K, and not touched the fucker again until
14K, would that have been a feasible move?
Yeah, I know, it's like saying, "If I could have bought puts on GOOG
at 730 and sold them now when GOOG's at 530", but it's a slightly
different question.
\_ Trying to time the market is very difficult, but you can always
try. Maybe you should start out doing with some percentage of
your retirment fund (like 1/4) and see how you do before risking
the whole thing.
\_ Umm, maybe he should not be doing this with retirement fund
money.
\_ I don't see why not, unless he is really close to retirement.
If he screws up and loses some small part of it (1/2 of the
1/4 he played with) then he has to cut back on spending a bit
so he can save more, or expect to work a bit longer or
whatever. What is sacrosanct about retirement fund money?
Since your risk horizon is probably longer, it actually makes
since to push it a bit.
\_ You have a point, sort of. It's not a bad idea to do all
your most tax-inefficient stuff in a retirement account.
However, you can only put so much money in these tax
advantaged accounts, so I don't think it's the best place
to fuck up. Therefore I wouldn't suggest "experimenting"
in a retirement account.
\_ I don't understand your question.
\_ If all this is in an IRA or 401(k), are there typically fees for
transferring out of $80K invested in a market index fund and
into treasuries, and back after 9 months, and if so, what are the
fees typically?
\_ Beating the market is a zero sum game. For every dollar invested in
the stock market that gets a 1% better than average return, another
dollar invested in the market underperforms the average return rate
by 1%. Just *trying* to beat the market will cost you in
transaction fees for each attempt at something clever. When you're
right, they'll cut into your returns, and when you're wrong, they'll
increase your losses even further. On the other hand, *matching*
the market's average return rate is trivially easy and inexpensive
in management fees (use an index fund). If you're convinced that
you're psychic, try this on paper for a while before you gamble
with your retirement money.
\_ about what kind of fee can I expect for a $100K move out of an
index fund and into a treasury fund (and vice versa) let's say
at a Fidelity managed IRA? thanks.
\_ It depends on the brokerage, account type, the specific funds
involved, and sometimes the circumstances of the transaction.
If you've got a specific enough transaction in mind, call your
broker and ask.
\_ yeah, but do you, or does anyone on soda happen to know
off-hand the typical fee for the specifics I described?
\_ No. I don't have an IRA with Fidelity, and am
unfamiliar with their fee structure. If I were moving
$100k in or out of the exchange traded index funds I've
been using in my Schwab brokerage (non-ira) account,
it would cost me about $10. Your mileage *will* vary.
\_ thanks! just wanted a rough number. this also tells
me that not many sodans know this number.
\_ We're not your web searching lap dogs, ass wipe.
\_ Let me paraphrase what I just said. "Schwab
charges $10 for stock trades in institutional
accounts." Do you still think I've given you
information relevant to your situation?
\_ Why not call your broker and ask? We don't
know what *your* fees are.
\_ this is true in general, I agree -op
\_ We are going to see SPX 750, possibly 500. Get out of the market
NOW.

1/21 More lame financial headlines today: FTSE 100, DAX, CAC 40 down
5.5 to 7%. DJIA futures down 500pts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCtQL5b_rCM (jump to 1:00 minute)
\_ nah, 3:20 is better. lol!
http://highprobability.blogspot.com
\_ There are some who feel like that uh if we have shitty economic
policies it might bite us in the ass. They don't understand what
they're talking about if that's the case. Let me finish. Um, there
are some who feel like conditions are such that there might be a
recession. My answer is: bring it on.
\_ Don't daytrade (or go to Vegas) with money you dan't afford to
lose. Good lesson to learn that early in life.
\_ da-mn. today's headline is: "I sold the BOTTOM"
\_ This guy appears to be the perfect contra indicator.
\_ maybe it's cmlee, the Anti-Analyst!

1/17 So, I'm thinking about starting up a post-tax investment account
with individual stocks. (In other words, I'd like to get into
small-time stock trading to try it out.) What's the best/cheapest
way to do this? E-trade? Fidelity?
\_ Any broker is fine. I use my bank (Wells Fargo) because they
make it easy to transfer money from checking to savings to
brokerage account and the fees are about average.
\_ Fun answer: http://thinkorswim.com has a very powerful software program
to trade options, futures, and stocks. They have a "paper money"
feature where you can place virtual trades and track how you are
doing. Tell us how you do! http://tinyurl.com/yrurvv
Boring answer: Scottrade
\_ If you are looking for cheapest, Scottrade is pretty
hassle-free. Another option is Sharebuilder, which is a bit
different in that you buy a dollar amount worth of stocks
instead of whole stocks. I think it can theoretically be
used to purchase those with high per-share prices, but I have
no experience with it. -Scottrade customer
\_ Supposedly tradeking is all right, and $5 is reasonably
cheap for trades. MB trading is okay and has quite cheap
trades, but don't have a web trading interface (you have
to use this windows program). Zecco gives you a certain
amount of "free" trades, which would theoretically be great
for DCA into ETFs or something, but I must warn you that
their customer service is the worst I've ever seen (or more
like non-existent, I guess). They dinged me with invalid
"margin interest" debits, and I don't even have a margin
account. Granted, these debits were less than the several
dollars worth of trades I've done there, but when I emailed
their customer service, I got one bullshit email response,
and then they just ignored the rest of them.

1/16 Nikkei 225 back to lows of 2001-2005 and 1986. Dang. I thought
stock markets of developed countries were supposed to return more
than a savings account over 22 years!
\_ If you cherry pick your dates, then no it won't. If you cherry
pick the other way you'd be a zillionaire.
\_ i guess we're supposed to wait 40 years?
\_ No, you're supposed to not cherry pick the dates. Or better
yet, just put your money in your piggy bank.
\_ If you are really interested in this topic, I suggest that you
read _Stocks_For_The_Long_Run_ by Siegel. Plenty of developed
countries stock markets have gone all the way to zero, usually
after they lost a war. If you held German stocks from 1933 to
1945, you were pretty unhappy. On the other hand, if you bought
the Nikkei back in 1950, you are still sitting on a very impressive
gain. The Nikkei is *still* not back to where it was in 1989, so
yes, you can cherry pick dates and demonstrate practically anything.
Diversification and a long term view are essential for success
investing, especially passive investing, like the stock market.
You should not have money in stocks that you need in the next
20 years. -ausman
\_ Guys, conventional wisdom is that you should invest in a market
index and hold x years, and you're virtually guaranteed to do okay.
What is "x" for returns better than a savings account / CD / bonds?
-op
\_ Wrong assumption. The stock market gives you likely better
returns than a more conservative option like a CD, with
a probability curve that starts at x and rises towards 100%
over time. -tom
\_ Also you have to diversify to prevent being really
screwed when one sector/company/country tanks for 20 years.
\_ what do you estimate the probability of a market index
outperforming CDs is for x = 30 years? do you have a sweet
spot for x? let's also assume we are moving from stocks
to bonds/safety as we get older, also as CFPs suggest.
to bonds/safety as we get older, as CFPs suggest.
\_ You could estimate this by looking at historical
30-year returns and seeing how many of those
periods resulted in returns less than 5%/year
average. I expect that probability is very low, less
than 10%. -tom

1/9 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aEX73qWiBrb4
Median GDP growth of +1.5% for 1H08 according to 62 economists
Fuckers GS, MER, MS predict recession in 2008
GS says recession "will be mild by historical standards", unemployment
at 6.5% in 2009.
\_ Co-incidentally, MS, MER and GS partners will all see reduced bonuses
this year. The best possibility for them to regain their fat
paychecks is to convince the Fed to lower interest rates.

12/25 Seriously dans. What is the age group of the people at your
startup? 25? 26? Mostly unmarried and no mortgage I presume?
\_ It's a wide range. Yes, we have some folks who are 25 or younger,
but we have several people who are in their early 40's and have
families (including kids) and mortgages. Actually, a surprising
number of the folks under 30 own in SF. -dans
\_ Born to money?
\_ No, married, no kids, and both parties have near or above
six-figure incomes. -dans
\_ Did they really save $100k in five years on less than
$100k/yr salary? That is kind of amazing. Was this a
couple who bought or a single person? Even $100k/yr won't
get you close to the typical $1M SF home. Did they buy
a condo?
\_ 'both parties have near or above six-figure incomes'
So $1M is not uncommon in SF, but there are things that
go for less, I'd say $700K is more average, but I
haven't looked at prices in a while. Some people
purchased condos, some people purchased in more
outlying districts where property values are less.
-dans
\_ That phrase can be interpreted in one of two ways:
1) two separate people each bought a home or
2) two people together bought a home
I thought you meant the latter, but I wasn't sure
so I clarified. $700k is average for all sales in
SF, condos included. SFH only is upwards of $1M,
but yes, you can get a place for much less in some
neighborhoods. I still wonder about the downpayment.
That is some mighty good saving, if they actually
did it on their own.
\_ I've saved more than $100K in less than 4 years, on a
single income of < $100K a year, with a wife and 2 kids,
in the Bay Area, ignoring 401K. BWAHAHAHA!
\_ Congratulations. What does that mean, ignoring 401k?
Not including the 401k into the $100k? Even more
impressive! How much is your rent? Does your wife work?
\_ Yes, I didn't include my 401K in that total, and my
wife does not work. I'm helped a lot by the fact
that my job is in a suburb, so I can get a 2 bed 1
bath duplex for $1150 a mo near my work.
\_ Your presumption was incorrect. Are you actually going to change
your behavior or working set of assumptions based on this? Or was
this just a troll? -dans

12/18 Awesome juxtaposition of headlines:
Scientists fear Arctic thaw has reached 'tipping point'
and
Arctic Sea Ice Re-Freezing at Record Pace
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/12/congrats-to-the.html
\_ Thank God. Once it tips can we stop hearing about this fraud
on working people everywhere? TIP! TIP! I want to hear about
global cooling for a few years (again).
\_ Tipping point meaning that after thawing a while now it will freeze
\_ Hey, global climate change skeptic: how about buying some
oceanfront property, maybe 2-3 feet above sea level,
oceanfront property, and maybe 2-3 feet above sea level,
somewhere?
\_ Why? Even the worst predictions of the IPCC say I'll be fine for
at least 100 years.
\_ so sea level's supposed to stay the same for 100 years and
suddenly jump? I don't think so...
\_ No, the worst predictions are 20cm rise in the next
century. So all I have to do is be at 2-3 feet and I'll be
fine for at least 100 years by the most alarming estimate.
But I expect the global warming hoax to be completely gone
in the next 5-10 years anyway.
\_ Then we'll be talking about global cooling and how
that is a man-made problem caused by C02.
\_ Are you going to aplogize to us all when you are
proven wrong?
\_ Are you going to apologize to us all when (okay, if)
you are proven wrong?

12/12 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119746804568523549.html
Fed offers term auction facility to address credit freeze
- Effective operation almost exactly like the Fed discount window:
Banks can borrow money from the Fed at weeks to months duration
- But at or near the fed funds target (instead of the discount rate)
- The key feature (not discussed in the article of course) is
Anonymity. Only the Fed will know who it lends to using this
facility. Banks don't borrow from the discount window because
it's public knowledge, telling the world that no other bank will
lend to you so you had to go to the discount window.
- The Fed is on the hook if the borrower goes belly-up, so it will
decide who gets how much in loans for how much collateral
- Starts next week for $20B and is envisioned as an ongoing program
- Fed also lent $24B to ECB and Swiss central bank to help Europe's
banks with SIV/CDO implosion. Central banks also relaxing
collateral requirements.
\_ Expect the taxpayer to get screwed in the end.
\_ privatize profits, socialize losses bitch!

12/4 Fed's guide to save the economy (feel free to add):
-print more money
-lower interest rate
\_ that sounds more like a recipe for inflation to me.
\_ Inflation might save the economy by allowing us to pay back
debts with cheap dollars. In fact, I think this is the idea.
\_ Is there a less painful way to get rid of the huge debt than
inflating it to insignificance?
\_ Exactly. Inflation isn't always bad from the government's
perspective. Inflation has worked before, and it'll work again.
-finish collapsing the dollar so we can switch to the Amero!
- Bushonomics in action
\_ What exactly is Bushonomics? More tax cuts? Unlikely in
the light of the Federal deficit.
\_ Massive deficit spending, tax cuts, more defence spending.
Continuing to drive down the value of the dollar in hopes
of closing the trade gap.
\_ How are we supposed to close the trade gap when the US
doesn't actually produce much that the world wants to buy?
Start selling US properties?
\_ Developing countries buying US properties is an
interesting situation. By buying a US asset, they
are effectively investing in the US economy, instead
of their own. Buying a US asset or US services pumps
money into the US economy.
Obviously, if US stuff was cheap enough the world
would want to buy it. They already buy lots of our
big ticket items like jumbo jets, large industrial
equipment, etc. Most Chinese manufacturing is not
so specialized that you couldn't just do it here if
it was cost effective.
\_ It will never be as cost effective, because the
US cares more about worker rights, the
environment, consumer safety, and so on.
\_ Never is a long time.
-Start a new war
-Stop foreclosures by bailing out dumb asses.

11/26 Media lavishes attention on bogus Zogby poll showing Hillary trailing
while ignoring reputable Gallup poll
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/11/media_lavishes.php
\_ More proof of liberal media bias.
\_ I think you're being sarcastic, but one could make that argument
since Hillary is probably the farthest right of the Dem
canidates. However, what the media really hates is a sure bet.
A sure-win canidate reduces the drama and reportability.
\_ Both polls are meaningless since we don't elect the POTUS in a
general election, otherwise Gore would have won in 2000. Only
State by State polls matter, assuming any poll does. Frankly, most
of the polls survey such a tiny number of people they're all highly
questionable. Show me a poll of 2000+ LV's and I'll pay attention.
\_ There is one meaningful point--much of Hillary's support is
because of "electability". If she's not as electable as
previously believed, that may erode her support.
\_ I understand that "electability" is what got Kerry nominated
too.
\_ I don't actually think that is true, since Edwards is clearly
more "electable." While it is true that Hillary supporters
often tout her electability, I think it is because they know
it is her weakest point and they are trying to pre-empt
Obama and Edwards' attacks on the point. FWIW, Obama is
probably no more electable than she is. -Edwards supporter
\_ Why do you support Edwards?
\_ I agree with him on the big issues: the Iraq War, which
he thinks was a mistake and wants to wind down as quickly
as possible; healthcare, which he wants to reform and
ensure complete covereage, with the most comprehensive
plan of anyone; and campaign finance reform, where he
has consistenly taken a stance against the open buying
and selling of political favors which is what K Street
has become these days. He also would use the bully
pulpit to bring attention to the issue of widening
income imbalance, which no one else seems to even notice
or care about. I disagree with him on a few things, like
free trade, but those are not large enough issues for me
and he is not enough of a protectionist for me to be too
worried. I also think he has a wider appeal than any of
the other candidates from either party and because of this
might be able to correct our drift away from a dangerous
and unhealthy extreme partisanship that has become
the other candidates from either party and because of
this might be able to correct our drift toward a danger-
ous and unhealthy extreme partisanship that has become
endemic lately. I know I partly say this just because
I grew up poor and white too, and so his story resonants
with me, but polls bear out that he has the most support
from independent voters of any candidate. He also doesn't
poll that badly amongst Republicans, probably because of
his southern accent and his open declarations of faith.
\_ Why don't people understand that universal healthcare
will bankrupt this country in a way that Bush's
stupid war could only dream of? Any candidate
that advocates such a plan should be voted down
just as if he was advocating invading Iran.
\_ Why aren't all the Western Democracies bankrupt
then? Why don't people understand that nationalized
healthcare has worked and saved the overall economy
vastly in every place that it has been tried?
\_ 1. The US pays their (expensive) defense
bills for them.
2. They will be bankrupt soon enough.
\_ Point 1 really means the American tax payer
pays for their defense. We also pay for
their health care to a large degree because
their governments hold down the price of
drugs artificially.
\_ Don't kid yourself. What percentage of
health care is drug costs?
\_ A lot. You tell me otherwise. How
much was the drug bill they passed
a year or two ago? How much will it
balloon up in 10-20 years?
\_ Spending on perscription drugs is
less than 10% of the overall
national cost of health care.
This is not a large proportion.
http://www.csua.org/u/k3z (IHT)
It will grow unless we do something
drastic, like nationalize health
care spending though, you are right
there.
\_ Sure they will. Conservatives have been
saying that about Sweden for at least 60
years now and in that time, they have
actually been closing the gap with America
economically. This is an interesting time
to claim that anyone else is going "bankrupt"
\_ People always point to Sweden. How
about Germany, Japan, and France?
Here's a good article about France:
http://tinyurl.com/22bc73
\_ Sweden has the highest tax rate.
Similar arguments can be made for
Germany and France, though. Japan
actually has a lower tax rate than
the US.
\_ Sweden has the highest oveall tax
burden. You can make the same general
arguement for most of Europe: the
argument for most of Europe: the
economy is doing just fine, in spite of
decades of Conservative insistence that
the mixed model cannot possibly work.
Their per capita income has actually
closed with the US over any period
in the past you care to measure it for.
France is kind of a basket case, but it
has been for a long time. Japan
actually has a relatively low overall
tax burden, slightly lower than the US.
\_ You should ask the Swedes what they think
about the way Sweden runs things.
\_ It's a Democracy, right?
\_ It's a democracy, isn't it?
\_ If you think democratic government
implies satisfaction with the
government, politicians, policy, or
the way the country is going you are
breathtakingly retarded.
\_ argumentum ad hominem
\_ What do you think should be done about income
imbalance?
\_ Tax the rich til they aint rich no more!
\_ Have any actual constructive suggestions?
\_ That was it.
\_ Spend more on education and job retraining,
especially for people displace by globalization.
Repair our badly neglected infrastructure, which
should employ lots of people and fix some of
our transportation issues at the same time.
What ideas do you have?
\_ The domestic income gap is related to global
income gaps and thus ties in to trade issues
and currency issues.
When you have "jobs Americans won't do" the
system is broken. To reduce the income gap you
have to either raise the floor or lower the
ceiling. Lowering the ceiling seems backwards
to me. To raise the floor you have to protect
"lower level" jobs to some extent, protect the
value of human labor vs. global competition.
\_ See, you are a protectionist, too! I am not
fundamentally disagreeing with you, but I
don't think it is very easy, or perhaps not
even really possible to "protect" these
lower skill jobs without screwing up your
economy in the long run. How would you propose
doing it? Tariffs? Closing the border? Trying
to impose labor or environmental standards on
our trading partners? All of these are
problamatic, for different reasons.
\_ Well I'm not really advocating
protectionism, but that is what I see it
amounting to if you see imbalance as a big
problem. It's not something I've ever really
been concerned about.
I think we should end guest worker programs.
It does not help Americans. It's a form of
subsidy and protectionism for inefficient
uses of resources. I'm not a fan of H1B
either. We need to invest in our own people,
not bring in foreign workers, unless those
workers are truly unique. H1Bs to do
low-level interchangeable tech work is bad.
letting skilled workers move here
permanently is ok by me but only at a
controlled rate.
We need to let market forces work to find
the proper use of our own workers in our
own land.
For trade though, labor and environmental
standards have to be part of the equation.
Ethical standards can't be allowed to affect
competitive advantage. I think China has a
natural competitive advantage in mfg'ing
in its labor supply, but tax and currency
issues can still hurt us.
issues can still hurt us. I think our
national monetary policy and debt and
inflation issues hurt low-income workers
around the world and contributes to
global income disparity.
\_ I would like you to explain your last
sentence, because I don't see it. How
does our monetary, debt and inflation
policy hurt low-income workers around
the world?
Inflation causes rise in asset prices without corresponding wage _/
increases. Since the world economy is historically dollar-driven,
as dollar-denominated assets such as oil rise in value, poor
workers lose. They have the least assets. US policy of massive
deficit spending and monetary supply increases has broad effects
on the world economy. Dollar inflation cancels out real wage
value increases for economies dependent on the dollar.
Here are some articles:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htmhttp://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HC22Ad02.html
The author of the second article has tons of other articles,
all very long and rambling. Have fun.
all very long and rambling. In that one he eventually talks about
Hitler. Have fun.
Honestly though I'm in way over my head with this economics stuff.
(Unfortunately I get the feeling that most of our politicians are
even more so.)
\_ That Asia Times article is really long and mostly disjointed.
It reminds me a lot of some of Lyndon LaRouche's stuff.
Have you actually read it? The Ron Paul thing was amusing, but
mostly wrong or irrelevant. I don't think inflation has the
effect that you seem to think that it has. The big losers in
an inflationary environment are people who depend on fixed
income investments, like retirees. The working poor don't feel
too much effect, since their paychecks are going up with prices
in a truly inflationary environment. What we are seeing now is
not really inflation, but a redistribution of purchasing power.
This is painful to the US, but probably feels pretty good to
China.
\_ I at least skimmed most of it. What exactly is wrong
in the Ron Paul speech?
China has its own income imbalance problem. I don't know if
average Chinese feels that great earning a couple bucks a day,
producing crap for Americans, with inflation in prices to
offset their wage gains. But I don't know, if overall they
are gaining real purchasing power then that's good...
Real inflation is higher than the official inflation figures.
Look at the costs of: education, medical care, drugs, energy
over the last couple decades. Wages for the lowest level jobs
have not grown much if at all. Food prices are on the rise
here and in China.
Inflation hits the poor and middle class much more than the
wealthy. Their savings are depreciated and the low wages
don't keep pace, and they don't have valuable assets.
\_ We are not in any kind of inflationary environment. If
we were, wages would be going up as well as prices, that
is what I keep telling you. Some things have gone up in
price, but many things are going down, like just about
anything that can be built in China. Real purchasing power
for urban Chinese has been going up very fast, but the
rural farmers are being left behind. A discussion of what
is wrong with the Gold Standard would require a new
topic, I am not going to go into it here. Inflation
has winners and losers, to be sure, but you can't just
make the blanket statement that it hurts the poor more
than the rich. Economically, it is actually the opposite
of that, because the poor have no assets to lose, while
many rich become poor (okay, usually middle class) in an
inflationary environment. Things like bonds get killed in
inflation. Stocks do poorly as well. Some kinds of hard
assets (like land) hold up well, but that is not how most
rich people hold their wealth anymore.
\_ Do you really think there is no inflation? I think we're
done here as you're just making contrary assertions and
this thread is gigantic.
\_ Do you want me to point you to any of the official
or unofficial statistics from the experts who measure
inflation? Inflation is low by any reasonable standard,
certainly lower than 5%/yr and probably about what
the BLS states as official inflation at ~2.5%/yr. I
don't think there is *no* inflation, but I think it
is very low and you haven't presented any evidence
otherwise, other than some anecdotal evidence. You are
the one making the unusual claim, you need to provide
proof of it. Wages have been going up less than prices,
but that is not the definition of "inflation."
I think you are just confused about what the term
means.
\_ I'm kinda too busy today to look up stuff for you
or talk about this more. Try googling for inflation
articles. Official government inflation figures are
not necessary reflective of real world inflation.
Inflation also doesn't act equally on all prices
and wages due to the nature of how the money supply
works. You also haven't pointed out any specific
error in the Ron Paul thing which I'd be interested
in. Also, look up inflation in China for example.
\_ Dude, I read The Economist every week. You are
simply speculating. Real inflation might be a
small amount more than reported inflation, but
not by much, at least not over the whole
economy. Ron Paul's desire to go back to the
Gold Standard marks him as a total fruitcake:
you lose control over your monetary policy in
such a monetary regime and would kill economic
growth to boot. No serious economist advocates
such a regime and would kill economic growth
to boot. No serious economist advocates
it, only a bunch of loons. I told you that
discussion is waaay to long and involved to go
into as an aside, but since you asked...
\_ Our monetary policy was primarily used to
allow massive government debt and price
bubbles. I fail to see how the current
situation is good in the long run.
Consumer debt is also the highest ever.
The US economy grew just fine before the
current system.
I also don't accept the "no serious expert"
line of reasoning.
The modern system is to conduct monetary
policy as if no recession can ever be allowed
to occur. But the reality is that this policy
is financed by endless expansion of debt and
inflation. Instead of natural corrective
recessions we are building up to some kind
of major crisis. It's like over-aggressive
fire prevention policy that ends up creating
a giant inferno when the forest gets too dry.
\_ Gloom and doomers are always with us.
We used to have much worse downturns, like
the Great Depression, the Panic of 1983 and
the Panic of 1837, before we went off the
Gold Standard. Only people with a serious
misunderstanding of history and economics
like Ron Paul want to bring back the
"good ole days" of 20%+ unemployment.
\_ The gold standard didn't cause the great
depression. It was irresponsible fiscal
policy. The central bank still has a lot
of power to affect money supply with a
gold standard. Prior to the Great
Depression in the 20's the Fed allowed
credit to grow beyond what could be
supported by reserves, much like the
mortgage crisis today. Result was the
the stock price bubble. When that crashed,
stock price bubble. When that crashed,
it also failed to act. The UK left the
gold standard in 1931, but it had already
been abandoned in WWI. The conditions
leading to the great depression and how
it was dealt with can't be chalked up
to the use of the gold standard.
Has any candidate taken a stance for the open buying
and selling of political favors?
\_ Open? Sure. Behind closed doors in smokey
rooms? Not a chance.
\_ I'm not sure you parsed my question properly.
\_ Uhm, maybe not.
\_ Clinton takes a lot of lobbyist money. Edwards
does not.
\_ I don't particularly like Clinton so I'm focusing
on Obama vs. Edwards. I'm personally a
conservative-leaning independent. Obama seems to
be in a better position to beat Hillary in the
primary. Have you considered that in your
electability calculations?
\_ I don't have any particular reason to
dislike Obama and I actually think he is
a pretty swell guy. I think he is less likely
to win in Nov, but I would certainly vote
for him against any GOP candidate I can
imagine. -Edwards' supporter
\_ I think that Edwards has a better chance in
the general election, but I would gladly
vote for either Edwards or Obama. -ES
It seems to me that Obama has done more in this area
than Edwards.
Obama had the wisdom not to authorize the Iraq war in
the first place.
Free trade is a mostly meaningless term to me. I
support it on textbook principle but the real world
isn't so simple.
\_ Obama didn't vote on the Iraq War as he was in
the Illinois State Senate at the time, I believe.
\_ Yeah. He spoke out against it in 2002 though:
http://tinyurl.com/3djwm5 (barackobama.com)
\_ "By contrast, I can't find a single example of any reporter or
commentator on the major networks or news outlets referring to the
Gallup poll at all, with the lone exception of UPI." Wait, I
thought UPI was the untrustworthy one with no original reporting?
\_ The Zogby poll was an internet poll? Was the number 1 canidate
Ron Paul?

11/20 Sowell explains why most income disparity statistics are bunk.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell112007.php3
\_ If by "explains" you means waves his arms wildly and says
absoultly nothing, then yes.
\_ He is confusing income disparity with class mobility.
\_ Classes aren't mentioned. -not op
\_ Just because he didn't use the word, doesn't mean that is
not what he was referring to. What do you call all his
dicussion about people moving from one tax bracket to another?
\_ He's talking about income mobility, not class mobility. -pp
\_ Explain what the difference is, please.
\_ still waiting for an answer here.. not that I really
expected a coherent one from a guy who read this
expected a coherent one from a guy who reads this
kind of crap, but still...

11/19 Are all charities "equivalent"? If I donate $100,000 to the
Metropolitan Opera House to encourage aspiring young musicians most
who will never make it in their lifetime, will I be more/less
impactful than donating $100,000 to help the poor in Africa?
\_ That depends on who you ask. A libertarian will say both are
equivalent as there's no moral judgements on people. A
socialist will think you're a total asshole. A capitalist
will point out that you're an idiot for not donating to
an organization that will somehow benefit you [in]directly.
\_ Is this a troll? If not, your best bang/buck on charity is
probably subsidizing childhood immunizations.
\_ unless you're against over-population
\_ When you find your humanity again, feel free to join the
rest of the human race.
\_ When you stop making assumptions about people because you
mis-interpreted a comment, feel free to join the rest of
literate adults.
\_ I'm too lazy to think about these issues. So when I want to donate,
I just donate to the American Red Cross, and then close my eyes and
let them do whatever they want with the money.
\_ What sort of impact do you want your donation to have? If you find
helping aspiring musicians more important than helping the poor in
Africa, then that is more impactful. As far as Africa goes, the
best thing the West can do for them is stop flooding the place with
freebies. How does anyone expect a local economy to grow in any
place that gets free throw aways of everything from the West? Who
would buy shoes from the local shoe maker when the US/UN/EU is
giving them away free down the street?
\- for an unbelievable story, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/national/24pickens.html
--psb

11/11 The Nikkei 225 is taking a beating. Save us Ben Bernanke, you're our
only hope!
\_ bah. an automobile has over 10000 components and Bernake is
just one little gear.
\_ bah. An engine has over 1000 components, and Bernake is just
one component out of many.
\_ I think he's more like the nut behind the wheel.
\_ What is Ben supposed to do for a foreign stock market?

11/7 Poll: Do you think corporate chief executive kick-backs, benefits,
and packages should be more closely watched and/or regulated for
better accountability to the small time, long tail share-holders,
or do you think it is fine the way it is? Mark D if you're a
Democrat, R if you're a Republican, L if you're a libertarian...
Regulation: D
Free-Market:
\_ The phrasing of this is so stupidly biased as to be useless.
Also, there's kind of a wide range between regulation and
no regulation whatsoever (which seems to be what you mean by
'Free-Market'). Also: who cares? -dans
\_ I think we should regulate the movie and sports industries to insure
that no actor, director, sports star, etc. gets an unfair wage.
Social Justice!
\_ I just want a multi hundred million kiss off package for destroying
a company. Where's that option on the poll?
\_ If you want to see the Free Market in action, go down to Baja for
a couple of days. The Haves have lovely hotels and license to do
whatever they want. The Have Nots are pimping their sisters in
order to get into the Have category. And there's trash and sewage
everywhere.
\_ Yes, because Mexico's economy is the closest example to a
free market economy in the world.
\_ What is the best example? Congo?
\_ That's more of a plutocracy. Or criminalocracy.

11/2 Who will hit $1000 first, GOOG or gold?
\_ Interesting question. I would guess GOOG just because stock
prices are more elastic than metals prices. But I think it
depends on the state of the economy. If the economy falters
and the Fed cuts rates a few more times, you could see
the stock market take a correction and gold shoot up. If the
economy keeps moving I'd expect the gold spike to diminish. -tom
\_ You are pushing it using "elastic" here. Maybe varaiance.
\_ Irrationality drives up prices, and GOOG attracts as many
irrational investors as did dot-com stocks. So my bet will
be GOOG based on the history of irrationality (e.g. it can't
possibly happen, people are idiots, ergo, it will happen)
\_ Gold also attracts a lot of irrational investors.
\_ The radio told me it can only go up. I shorted GOOG so I
could buy gold.
\_ Oil.

10/31 Bought a bunch of GOOG at ~$450. Sold 1/2 at around $650. I'm
thinking of dumping 1/2 again (1/4 of original). What do you
guys think? Are you holding on or what?
\_ I bought at $300 and sold at $550, but only because my wife
wanted a kitchen remodel. In general, I think buy and hold
is the best solution, though I will often do as you do and
sell half after a significant runup. If I was still holding
GOOG, I would have sold half at $600 and be keeping the rest.
\_ Ok so let's say you sold 1/2 at $600, how much higher would
it have to be before you decided to sell another 1/2?
\_ I use trailing stops, so it would have to hit my stop. I
would never sell a stock just because it has gone up "too
much." I have learned the hard way that this is a bad idea.
In a stock that had gone up that much, my trailing stock
would be waaay back there, like 25% below where it is now.
Ideally, I would want to hold it until retirement. I can
give you a list of stocks that I am currently holding
that have gone up 200% or more that I will probably never
sell. I can also give you a list of stocks that I sold
too soon because I thought they had already gone up
"enough."
\_ I thought about this some more and decided that
my best advice is for you is to come up with
some guidelines for yourself that determine when
you should buy and sell (before you buy) and stick
to those rules. Change the rules on the basis of
what you learn over time. You first need to decide
why you are investing and if the answer is just
"try to make money fast" then the stockmarket is
possibly not the right venue for that.
\_ I bought at $450 and am holding pending a significant change
in the business or the environment. -tom
\_ Of course, the problem here is if there is a significant change,
all the brokers will be able to sell faster than you and the
price will drop before you can sell. I've read that you get
within 20% of what you think the max should be you're doing great
\_ I'm not trying to time the market; I'm staying invested in
a company with good revenues, earnings, and growth potential.
You are correct that if Google misses significantly on
earnings, the stock will go down. 20% would be a drop of
140 points; I'm pretty sure I would manage to sell if there
were a fundamental change, before Google drops 140 points.
-tom
\_ I'm generally a buy and hold guy, but this is an unusual case. It
really depends on what you think. Are you a "The sky is the limit"
GOOG guy, or are you a "Tech Bubble 2.0" guy? If you're the former,
hold on. If you're the latter, sell it all and count your money.
It's already been a great investment, I think you could sell with
out regret. But I'm a "Tech Bubble 2.0" guy.
\_ One thing about "Tech Bubble 2.0"; it may be. But I own AMZN
from Tech Bubble 1.0, and it's up 171%. Good companies will
provide good returns. -tom
\_ but there is a distinction between a good company and a
good stock. GOOG is beginning to act like IOMG. -daveh
\_ I see no parallel at all between Google and Iomega.
What are you comparing? -tom
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/jvi (Seeking Alpha)
GOOG now fifth largest company by market cap. But it would have
to be $1500/share to be larger than XOM... Go GOOG Go!

10/31 Can someone please explain to me why the Fed is about to cut rates
again when:
1) The dow is only slightly off it's all time high.
2) Oil is at or above $90.
3) The dollar is going off a cliff.
4) GDP grew 3.9% in the 3rd quarter.
5) P&G and Colgate are announcing big price increases.
\_ Credit is very tight right now. They can increase the money supply
by printing dollars, or decreasing rates. I personally hope they
keep it tight until all the bad loans fall out.
\_ I agree, flush out all the bad apples, start with a clean slate
\_ Unemployment is up, GDP growth over the last year has been 1.8%,
which is well below what the economy should be able to perform,
and "core" inflation is low. The weak dollar might even be thought
to be a positive, because it is contributing to economic growth
and helping to solve the trade deficit. Overall, I think the Fed
is worried about a recession (which they should be, imo).
\_ ... and, USG thinks there won't be significant capital flight even
with continued rate cuts and hits on the dollar--that U.S. markets
will be perceived as a deteriorating, but performing investment.
USG will slow rate cuts / tighten if this becomes less true.

10/26 Dear oil man, which oil stocks are good to buy now? Thanks.
\_ DUG
\_ I'd avoid oil stocks because the Dems are going to win 2008
and with them will come socialist programs and
strict energy regulations.
\_ IXC is a safe bet, but I am holding XOM, BP and CVX. Any
big major is probably a good bet.

10/20 If company X has open trading window for their employees tomorrow
and stock X has been as high as ever, then traditionally, would
their employees most likely start dumping stock X, making a good
time for bozos like us to short X?
\_ When bozos short stocks they're usually wrong. Short a stock
because you don't believe in the company, not because you think
you see some technical factor. -tom
\_ You can totally believe in a company and yet it is too expensive.
\_ That is usually a bad candidate for a short.
\_ Exactly. Do you really think you can predict the moment
at which the market is going to turn? Here's a rule
of thumb for you: Don't short good companies. There
are plenty of bad companies out there to short, if that's
what you want to do. -tom
\_ Bad companies are usually valued like they should be.
Good/bad shouldn't enter into it. Just valuation.
Valuation is not a "technical factor".
\_ Or don't believe in the sector, like housing stocks at the
end of the housing boom.
\_ Good point here. Plenty of good companies tank if their
sector tanks.

10/11 wtf is happening with the Dow index?
\_ It is going up and down as it always has been. What about it?
\_ cliff
\_ What about it?
\_ wtf is happening
\_ It is going up and down as it always has been. What
about it?
\_ stack out of memory
\_ Stock up on gold and ammo! Head for the hills!
\_ norm

9/20 So, with the dollar tanking where should I put my money to weather
the comming storm?
\_ 'In the longer term, the U.S. dollar will have to rebound at some
point, said Dustin Reid, senior foreign exchange strategist at ABN
AMRO in Chicago. "It can't continue into oblivion forever."'
-- http://csua.org/u/jk0 (Reuters)
\_ You are too late. Dollar has already tanked. Buy low, sell high.
\_ Jim Cramer be damned, I suspect that the tankage has farther to
go, and that it's not too late. So, if you knew the dollar was
going to continue to tank, what (besides foreign currencies
directly) would you invest in?
\_ Stocks and mutual funds of foreign companies whose currency
will do well against the dollar. Truthfully, though, these
have outperformed and I think you are too late. But if you
think you are not late to the party that everyone else has
been at for years then, yeah.
\_ Jim Cramer says you are not too late. the stock market is going to
14,500 by end of year. buy-buy-buy!
\_ obWhyDoYouHateAmerica?
\_ I put my money into both American and foreign investments. Why
place your bets for/against a single currency? You wouldn't put
all your money into a single stock.
\_ while i dont disagree with you, the analogy of single currency
and single stock misses something slightly when the single
currency is the dollar and you are long in the dollar.
\_ Megacap companies that make most of their profits overseas
are probably a good bet.

9/18 So, the lesson of the fed rate cut is: borrow as much as you can, get
way over your head, make risky investments as well. make big bucks on
the way up. if you get into trouble, the Fed will bail you out. if
you're a saver you're a sucker... your life savings just took a hit
through dollar devaluation.
\_ If you are a saver you ALWAYS take a hit through dollar devaluation
\_ I've been busy the last few days... I thought they were going to
let everyone bite it. What sort of bailout did the Fed do?
\- "If you owe your bank a hundred pounds, you have a problem.
But if you owe your bank a million pounds, it has." --jmk
BTW, this is an example of why taxes should be progressive.
\_ It's amusing that you jump on progressive taxation to remedy
this particular problem rather than, you know, eliminating
bailouts. -- ilyas
\- progressive taxation isnt a solution to this.
this is an illustration of the fallacy of some of
the "how should we split the dinner bill" type bogus
analogies.
\_ The best argument for progressive taxation I know is
that marginal benefit increases exponentially, but
hedonic value increases logarithmically (if that),
for money. -- ilyas
\_ Investors and risk takers will always do better than nervous
nellies. You would rather the whole economy suffered a recession?
\_ They're not taking risks if the government bails them out. And
considering that the only reason the economy is in danger of
suffering a recession is *because* of this kind of risk taking,
it shouldn't be encouraged. -tom
\_ I think you'd have a hard time substantiating your last
sentence.
\_ Investors, probably, risk takers? That's ridiculous. The kind
of fevered speculation that goes on in these "booms" is not
sound business and should not be encouraged. But unless those
who do this feel pain, it won't stop. And it does endanger the
economy. The "lemming" mentality should not provide safety
from stupidity.
\_ Yeah, I don't approve of fevered speculation and lemming
mentality either. Feel better?

9/11 http://www.csua.org/u/jhl
"I'm leaving him," she said. "He's grouchy all the time. I want a
guy who's rich and cheerful all day and all night. Why should I
have to suffer because his business is bad?"
Are any of you losing wives over the whole housing bubble popping?
\_ Hi, I'm Ben Stein and watch me try and claim that the housing
bubble is going to turn around any day now, but do so in a way
that if it doesn't I can pretend I wasn't saying that.
God damn that man is such a wanker.
\- "I won the John Bates Clark Medal. You, sir, are
a game show host." ... BEEN STEIN is not just a pud,
but may actually be semi-insane. This is well worth reading:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/06/a_missing_piece.html
\_ Hi, I'm a motd troll. Watch me make fun of an article I haven't
read, poorly. Did I fool you?
\_ Dude, in that article he tries to play it both ways so bad
it isn't even funny.
\_ "Six years."
\_ Why do you take it so seriously? It's obviously not a
"here are my weighty predictions" article. It's just
some dumb fluff piece.
\_ Look, it's just a dumb fluff piece so I can take
both positions. See, just a dumb fluff piece.
Of course after everything goes down I can
point to the parts that were right and forget all
the fluffyness. If things go totally haywire and
neither X nor Y happen I can just shrug and say
it was a dumb fluff piece. This is exactly why
I think The Daily Show shouldn't get a pass for
being on Comedy Central.
\_ Uh, when have people pointed to the Daily Show
in a serious way? I don't see how anyone could
point to this article here in a serious way
either.
\- Jon Stewart doesnt claim to be a lawyer &&
economist && journalist && philosopher, seek
affiliation with think tanks which lobby to
change public policy etc. BSTEIN allegedly
was #1 in his class at yale law, so ostenisibly
he at some point was a smart guy. but he says
so many whack things, that why i think you need
some theory ot explain his brain snapping or
being disingenuous etc [like ann coulter clearly
says some things so she becomes a media story->
free advertising].

9/7 You know how they say stocks always outperform everything else over
30 years? We may now be entering that period where it underperforms
for several years.
\_ What will it underperform? Real estate?
\_ bonds, CDs - assuming you bought them three months ago
\_ Heck, if I can go back in time, why not just buy winning
lottery tickets?
\_ hey, you asked me about historical performance
\_ "...will it..." What part of that sentence is past tense?
\_ okay fine. why don't we just say CDs may outperform
stocks from the present time.
\_ They might, but I doubt it. What do you think?
I am about 20% in muni bonds and 5% in CDs, but
the rest is in the market.
\_ The bond market is not looking too good right now. All
analysts say blue chips are the place to be. They are
historically cheap.
\_ is it time yet to buy buy buy?
\_ Not as good as a year ago (when they were even
cheaper) but still good, yes.
\_ That is what I think, too. -pp
\_ You can make more money in the slave trade. Just join the UN.

8/21 Still believe there is no housing bubble?
http://www.csua.org/u/jdm
"The entire Central Valley of California(and, in fact, the entire State,
with a very few exceptions) is in the worst real estate downturn in
my 30+ year career.
THERE, I'VE SAID IT!"
\_ And she doesn't have an agenda does she?
\_ If there's anyone who doesn't believe there's a housing bubble,
please post here and sign it so we can laugh at you. -dans
\_ I believe this woman has pretty little credability.
\_ While I agree with you on this point, I still think folks who
believes there is no housing bubble should post their names on
the motd so we can laugh at them. -dans
\_ I never said there was no bubble, I just think this woman
is a moron who is trying to make money off of fear.
\_ I never claimed you did. -dans
\_ I don't recall any sodan ever denying there was a housing
bubble - just ridicule about timing, poor logic, hyperbole,
etc.
\_ What does "housing bubble" mean? What are you predicting
as a result of this supposed housing bubble?
\_ did you have sexual relations with that woman, Ms.
Lewinsky?
\_ Who here said there was no housing bubble? Prices go up, prices
go down. Things change over time. Sometimes they change fast.
This is how the business cycle works. And I still don't understand
why you or anyone else would be hoping and praying or gloating over
a potential fall in housing pricing. All that means is the whole
economy gets dragged down, interest rates rise, etc, and you still
won't be able to buy a house.

8/16 We have a correction! Dow is now 10% below the 14K high.
\_ no we don't
\_ The finance industry says it's the technical definition of
\_ Wall Street says it meets the technical definition of
a correction.
\_ it is a correction if you say the 10% can be calculated off
the low value for the day
it isn't if you say the 10% should be calculated off market
closes
i'm with the latter camp
\_ <cough>

8/10 http://tinyurl.com/2vz45a (iht.com)
Fed accepts MBS bonds, kicking back $35 billion in cash to banks in
short-term loans, delaying mark-to-market valuations on the bonds
(encouraging mark-to-Fed accounting schemes).
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/jbd (Economist's View)
That is not really an accurate summary of what really happened.
The MBS were all Agency backed and therefore gov't guaranteed
in the first place. Secondly, they did not buy them, they
accepted them as collatoral for a very short term (72 hour)
loan.
More discussion about it here:
http://www.csua.org/u/jbe
(I know you don't like this blog, but unless you can find a
better source of economic explaination, too bad emarkp) -ausman

8/4 It's not easy being a mere single digit millionaire:
http://www.csua.org/u/j9u
\_ Obviously, we need to cut more tax. -Conservative
\_ I read that in the paper. Bunch of fucking whiners.
\_ This guy is an idiot. His house is paid and he has $2M. Maybe
I'd keep working if I was 31, but at 51 he needs to do
something he likes. If work is what he likes then fine, but
then admit that and don't complain about 12 hour days. The
article is full of suckers, which I think is the point. If the
guy cannot afford Hillsborough then maybe he should sell.
There's no honor in going bankrupt living a life you cannot
afford just because you were once worth $50M 10 years ago.

8/3 http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070803/bearstearns_markets.html?.v=1
"Bond market turmoil sending investors fleeing from risk may be a worse
predicament than the 1980s stock market fall and Internet bubble burst,
Bear Stearns Chief Financial Officer Sam Molinaro said on Friday."
... well that's not a good headline
\_ It's a cyclical market! Lalalalala!
\_ Housing prices are going to crater in 2005! Lalalalala!
\_ Markets are cyclical. This is news to you? Maybe Sam is
entirely right. Things drop. You believe they'll stay that
way forever? Do you *want* them to stay that way? I don't
see the reason for your snarkiness and sarcasm on such a
sky-is-blue issue.

7/25 One way to close the gap between the rich and the poor:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19958752/site/newsweek
\ "The LAPDâ€™s West Division has put a task force of
10-plus detectives on the case; plainclothes patrols have joined
the chase."
I wonder how many detectives Oakland police would put on the case
if this was happening at, say, Fruitvale?
\_ Oakland doesn't have enough officers, so probably no more
than usual. Oakland also has an artificial shortage of
officers, since they all work 4 10 hour shifts, giving them
3 day weekends. So on day 5 they get over time. Oakland
also has an even more artificial shortage of officers, since
plenty of Oakland cops fill internal jobs that at other
depts, are filled by non cops. The Oakland PD union should be
destroyed. I'm sure there are good people in the oakland
pd but too many of them are fucking stupid or are just riding
that cushy salary until they retire.
\_ "Los Angeles Police Department detectives think the crew has
struck more than 50 times since late last fall." If the same
neighborhood in Fruitvale has been struck more than 50 times by
the same crew, I think Oakland PD would assign quite a few people
on the case, if not 10-plus.
\_ Go to http://gismaps.oaklandnet.com/crimewatch.
Search for burglaries within 1 mile of Fruitvale and
International within the past 90 days. -tom
\_ Why don't these super-rich people buy security cameras with higher
resolution? That video screenshot is next to useless.
\_ Resolution is useless if there's no light to be captured.
Infrared cameras will help, though.
\_ Or combination of motion sensor light and cameras.

7/23 Large majorities of people in the US and in Europe want higher
taxation for the rich, and view globalization as a negative force.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2a735dd0-3873-11dc-bca9-0000779fd2ac.htmlhttp://video.ft.com/ukdailyvideo/?clipid=1359_FT0339
\_ One problem is defining what "rich" means.
\_ That's easy, I'm pretty sure the standard everyone in the survey
was using was "richer than me."
\_ Easily done: Income > $1,000,000 per year.
\_ "But but but that is COMMUNISM!!! Time to lobby to make
sure this never happens." -multi-millionaire
\_ Unfortunately, politicians define "rich" as between $75K and
$200K / yr. depending on who is asking the question.
\_ Sure, and they're wrong. We all know that millionaires are
rich, since they're the only ones who can afford a house
the SFBA. Kidding aside, aggressive prosecution under
existing laws and repeal of the wealthy-subsidies passed
under the Bush Admin would put us back into a surplus.
\_ Yes but the economy will halt because there will
be no more wealth to trickle down to the poor
and everyone will suffer. -Reagan #12523121 fan
\_ Mr. Reagan fan, why does trickle down smell like
something out of an R. Kelly home movie?

7/13 Okay, someone mentioned this a week ago, so I have to ask.
How many of you are millionaires?
Bill Gates:
millionaire: ..
not a millionaire, but on my way: .
\_ if I pass the july bar :-)
f**k you:
Gentlemen do not discuss money or sex: .
\_ Defined how?
\_ I think it's current value of all your assets. This includes
current market value of your house minus remaining principle in
your mortgage, current dollar amount in your 401(k), current
market value of your stocks, money in your saving account, plus
current market value of your car, TV, stereo, porn magazine
collection, etc. The fact that you'll have to pay tax if you
sell your house, cash out your 401(k), etc. is irrelevant.
-- !OP
\_ Does it count if you+spouse > $1M, or do you only count
half of the house?
\_ I would count my spouse, but it is up to you...

6/25 http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/charitable.giving.ap/index.html
Americans are very generous.
\- that is a really lousy article. it's a very fair criticism
that comparisons of just things like foreign aid from the
govt isnt fair to the US where there is larger private sector
donating, it is equally true you have to consider the lower
taxes here, and some other issues relating to tax policy ...
if somebody donates a huge amount of money to avoid taxes,
it needs to be thought of a little differently [read about the
history of HHMI]. this is another case of an article where it's
unclear the facts add up to the conclusion suggested [as the
OP writes, "americans are very generous"]. what should have been
the biggest piece of news in there is how much "charity" is
sucked up by religious orgs. certainly a lot of this goes to
good ends like church run hospitals [10-20% of community
hospitals in the US are Catholic church operations] but a lot
relig donations are sort of parochial, so to speak. also the
large fraction of the donations going elite educational and
\_ Parta, seriously, I could care less about the homeless people
who are causing my property to depreciate. However, I've
donated hundreds of dollars to Classical 102.1 KDFC. Am
I an elitist? Do you hate me?
\- no, i just think there is a difference say volunteering at
your kids school and say doing a doctors without borders
kind of thing. obviously i am not saying volunteering at
your kids school is bad, but a different phenomena is
going on.
medical establishments and elite cultural orgs isnt really
consistent with the "giving to the poor" conception of
charity. [and reglig+elite educ/medica/culture is something like
\_ Au contraire, mon frere! Going back well into early
Europe, pretty much *every* artist, 'doctor', 'scientist',
and other 'elite' was only able to produce or research
because they had some rich benefactor. You think all that
art was produced on the government dole? Or by selling to
'The People' in the market square?
\- no, i'm generally opposed to public funding of the arts.
btw you also need to acknowledge the govt had a role
via their decision to enforce IP. to get middle class
novelists for example, you need to have copyright
enforced.
60-70% of the total, i believe]. at least some amount of this
number is no doubt more of a testiment to the creativity of
tax profressionals here rather than a reflection on inherent
generosity. note that there have been some studies looking at
attitudes changing toward in attitudes toward social welfare
as there is more mixing of population groups, so the benefits
are less likely to go toward "people like me", e.g. some
europeans are beginning to reconsider the high level of the
social safety net in the face of high levels of brown immigration.
\_ Wow, partha, you are a real shithead. The issue of 'optimal
giving' (e.g., if I want to go good, and I am willing to think
about it, where should my money go) is completely orthogonal
to 'generosity.' I wouldn't give money to most 'conventional
charities' you probably wouldn't have a problem with, like
the Red Cross because I think they are a very inefficient use
of my money. The vast majority of people have a 'generosity
impulse', but they aren't really willing to think very hard about
their money and true causes of problems in the world. It's true
that the results they achieve with their
money aren't as good as they could be, but it sort of seems like
you are calling into question the morality of their act, which is
in very poor form. I am curious if, parallel to you taking a dump
on the possible motives of Americans who give you might also
have a spirited defense of the rest of the world (which gives
a lot less). I was also most amused by the importance you
place on historical conceptions of charity as 'alms for the
poor.' I wonder if you will have moral objections to
intentionally improving outcomes by 'counterintuitive means' (or
objections to calling such things 'charity.') -- ilyas
objections to calling such things 'charity.') Sometimes
Franklin's view is more appropriate than Mother Theresa's.
-- ilyas
\_ I believe he already addressed the "citizens of other places
don't give as much" when he said their taxes are higher which
implies they give through their government so are morally
excused from giving personally. Anyway, we know all rich
people are automatically evil oppressors so it doesn't matter
if they give to charity or not. They must be doing it for
evil and selfish reasons.
\- if i had to summarize my main point:
donating $500m in paintings to a museum != donating
to "help people". lumping them together clouds the
statistics. as i said, the facts dont add up to the
conclusions. we can probably say things like "one reason
the higher educ institutions are so good here is there
sucess getting private donations". by no means would i
"dump" on america by saying "but that's only because
of lousy public funding it is necessary." although
things like tax policy has consequences [like what is the
per capita spending at saratoga high school vs. an east
sj high school etc].
BTW, i think "american generosity" gets the short shrift
by not considering the "uncaptured" returns from
medical research [antibiotics, vaccines etc], and
agricultural reasearch ["green revolution"], but to
think about this issue sophisticatedly, there are
offsetting negatives as well.
\_ Charity is ineffective because determining effects is
hard. I wouldn't even go so far as to say donating
to a museum isn't 'helping' -- I just don't understand
what 'helps' well enough. I do know a lot of african
charity is extremely counterproductive. -- ilyas
\_ Some software is counterproductive. Therefore,
we should stop using software.
\_ Where did you get the idea that I am claiming
charity is a bad thing or should be stopped?
Did you even read my other post? If there's a
normative undercurrent to what I am saying at all,
it's that what people should be concentrating on
isn't SPENDING but understanding effects, and
understanding how complex systems evolve. In
some sense donating is easy, but your conscience
shouldn't rest just because you donated to
something recently. -- ilyas

5/9 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f2279236-fe5a-11db-bdc7-000b5df10621.html
Daily trading volume of China's two major stock exchanges at $5
billion six months ago, $16 billion two months ago, and $49 billion
today -- exceeding Japan, the UK, and second only to the U.S.
\_ China doesn't have the equivilent of the SEC.
\_ not disagreeing, but China doesn't have day trading or hedge
funds (the latter contributing at least 25% of U.S. volume any
given day).
\_ Yes they do. It's called The Invisible Hand.
\_ ka-boom!
\_ Plotting the curve shows China should meltdown in about 5-6 weeks.
\_ What curve?

5/7 http://www.thestreet.com/_realtime/funds/fundmorning/10354751.html
Bear fund manager predicts Dow will fall "at least 50% ... I think this
is a topping pattern. We think it's probably three to six months away"
Fund hoards gold and shorts the market, has miniscule 0.55% and 0.60%
1-yr and 3-yr annualized returns.
\_ Uh, if he is right, what should we do? CDs? MM? ING/X Direct?
\_ You should diversify regardless of his predictions.
Put some in bonds, CDs, index funds, metals, energy, real estate,
and dot coms. I'd bet energy would be a big gain in the next few
decades or so.
\_ Buy his fund, of course! Aside from that, can you get Euro
CDs? If the dollar tanks US CDs might not be a good idea.
\_ Quick! Short GOOG NOW!

4/2 http://biz.yahoo.com/ts/070427/10353243.html
Investor Jeremy Grantham says we are now experiencing the first
worldwide bubble in history -- all asset classes are inflated.
"My colleagues suggest that this global bubble has not yet had this
phase [an "exponential phase" just prior to the falloff] and perhaps
they are right. ... In which case, pessimists or conservatives will
take considerably more pain."
\_ Then again, we could just be entering a period of long term low
interest rates, which would make fixed income producing assets
worth more. During the middle of the Pax Romana, real interest
rates were about 2% and during the Victorian Era in England,
worth more. During the middle of the Pax Romana, interest
rates were about 4% and during the Victorian Era in England,
rates were even lower. This may be a comparable time. -ausman
\_ We're entering uncharted territory since never before
in the history has the global economy been so interdependent
and dependent on energy -- which is about to experience
a major disturbance.
\_ What major disturbance? Peak Oil does not qualify as
a disturbance, more a slow motion train wreck.
\_ "By his calculations, the only assets likely to beat inflation by
any significant margin if you hold them for the next seven years
are managed timber, "high-quality" U.S. stocks, and bonds."
That doesn't sound like all asset classes. His idea of high
quality stocks includes Home Depot, which proves he is on crack.
Ignore him.

4/18 http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=000001.SS&t=1y&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=
I don't get it. In the space of 1 year, the Shanghai Stock Exchange
index has gone from 1400 to 3600. What gives? Doesn't the central
government love stability? Does this mean 3600+ is stable?
\_ first of all, Shanghai Stock Exchange, like *ALL* Asian stock
exchange, is not nearly as transparent as NYSE, etc.
However, recently I've attended a leading Chinese economist.
He said there are couple reason why stockmarket are high
- for some reason, average profit margin has increased tremedously
in past 3-5 years
- PE Ratio was hover around 15 back in 2005. Now, it's close to
35, which is close to NYSE average. But compare with all other
Asian stock market's average P/E ratio, Shanghai is actually on
the low side, which implies there are still a way to go
\_ This is wrong on a number of counts: first of all, the S&P
500 P/E is 16, not 35. Secondly, the P/E of most asian
markets is not over 35. In the Korean borse, it is 10,
for example. I personally think that the Shanghai market
is in a bubble, driven by a lack of investment opportunities
for regular Chinese, but I could be wrong.
- while raw material prices are on the rise (thanks to US choke on
energy market), inflation is relatively in checked due to
stagnant labor cost (see below)
- while hourly wages has increase something like 30% in past 5
years, productivity also increase about the same amount. Much
of the productivity gain (which is probably the highest in the
world) is due to deregulation and market reform in conjunction of
IT revolution.
- China's economy is finally got out of contraction mode and
start expanding. Key industries are housing and automobiles
(great, here goes the Earth)
\_ Uh, what? Hasn't China's economy grown by 10% or so every
year for over a decade?
- MarketShare/GDP was depressed back in 2005. I didn't pay
much attention to this number because I have no idea what does
number means
Overall, the economist is relatively optimist about China economy's
fundamental and therefore he personally didn't think the stock market
is too high. Then again, stock market seldem reflects the
fundamentals. kngharv
\_ kngharv, do you agree with that economist?
\_ SSEC down 4.5% today. But I get it. China is doing everything
it can to moderate growth, but investors just can't get enough. -op
http://tinyurl.com/2w62q8 (reuters.com)
\_ SSEC down 6.5% today. Just in time! -op

4/18 Free advice sought from soda financial advisors.
I'm a single guy making about $120k with no debt and about $150k
saved. What would be a ballpark estimate of how much house I can
afford in the Bay Area. Any other major variable to consider?
Thanks!
\_ Um, STFW? There are mortgage payment calculators on the web.
Second, do you know your own budget? How much of a payment
can you afford? And remember to figure in $250/mo for utils,
and monthly payments for house insurance and property tax.
Not to mention a monthly expense to "buy stuff" for your
house, like furniture, and don't forget house maintenace.
\_ http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/houseafford/houseafford.html
assumes 33% payment-to-income ratio for "aggressive".
for san jose this comes out to a ~ $585K house.
\- that calculator probably assumes dependents [children]. if you
you are single, and not a cokehead, or driving "teutonic rolling
stock", it's probably ok to shift toward the aggressive side,
tempered by factors like job-relocation flexibility and what
your beliefs are about the future of the mkt [i say beliefs,
because you dont want to end up in an investment that causes
you stress because it's at odds with your appetitie for risk].
there are also difficult, person-specific choices like borrowing
against 401k/403b etc [how common is that for 20-30somethings?
different people have very different expectations of future
income from salary increase reates, inheritance etc.].
btw, i think the calcultor there has some other issues.
the house price changes by exactly the same amount as
the down payment. i.e. for a downpayment of $150k, the house
price is exactly $150k more than $0 downpayment. but it's
certainly reasonable for a ballpark [i.e. you can do better than
a $350k house in the sticks but probably not a million dollar
place in sf]. it's kinda funny that with those stats, buying
a place in "90%" of the country is a non-issue [the land of
<$350k houses]. if not sf, not palo alto, not nyc, not ...
\_ Well *I* think you can go up to about $1M, but you probably
can't get a bank to lend you that much. What are your current
expenses? You should be able to do the math on what you can
afford. People in the Bay Area have always spent more than
33% on housing.

3/28 Why is there not a clear correlation between crude price and actual
price at the pumps? Am I missing something about the very
basic laws of supply and demand?
\_ One theory is that if the crude price increases, it implies
that the future supply is uncertain and could become quite
scarce. Thus, the present stock is more valuable than the
price originally paid. A immediate price increase is needed
to accurate reflect this valuation. In addition, if the supply
does become scarce, one must earn future profits with current
stock. This requires a present increase in price.
If the crude price falls, this cannot be reflected at the pump
w/o taking a present loss. Current stock was obtained at a
higher price. To recoup this higher purchase price, one must
continue selling that stock at a higher price. Therefore, a
lag is necessary.
A competing theory suggests that the oil companies just like
making money and have no incentive to take less of your money.
\_ Produce prices in Chinatown follow the same pattern. When a
storm is forecasted, produce prices go up right away; when the
storm is over, produce prices stay up for a while before going
back to normal. I personally believe in the "competing theory"
above.
\_ The prices go up suddenly because current prices reflect future
value, which includes uncertainty. After the uncertainty goes
away, it takes some time for competitive pressures to push the
price back down.
\_ There is. Anyone who tells you otherwise has an agenda. See the
following chart:
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=24http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=72
Check the box "Show Crude Oil Price".
However, the demand of gasoline is very inelastic, so when demand
outstrips supply, the price change is quick and dramatic. Lastly,
local laws dramatically affect the price (requiring certain blends,
taxes, etc.).
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx

3/26 BUT....BUT.... BUT REAL ESTATE ALWAYS GOES UP!!!!!
\_ Yes. It does. Over time. No one with a multi-decade investment
time line ever lost money on real estate. If you bought swamp
_______________________________________/
\_ The same is true of the stock market. Read a random walk down
wall street. Over any 20 year time span, including one where
you invest on the eve of the great depression, the stock market
has averaged at least 20% annual returns after inflation. Read
a random walk down wall street. -dans
\_ 20% after inflation? I think not. Try more like 7%. -ausman
\_ mea culpa. -dans
land, that's your problem. Land ownership is the traditional
way to wealth going back to the start of history. The other way
is military conquest of the world but I doubt you have a personal
army.
\_ Is that true? I remember a time when Tokyo real estate
bubbled to truly absurd values. If you bought at the wrong
time I think you may have failed to beat inflation over a
30 year period.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_asset_price_bubble
\_ Yes, it's true. If you buy over priced swamp land you're
going to get burned. Doesn't matter if the swamp land is in
Florida or Tokyo. There's always more people, there's always
less land.
\_ I'm pretty sure you've qualified that statement so much that an
equivelent statement could be made for stocks. "No one has ever
lost money in a multi-decade investment in a well diversified
portfolio." Is that not true as well?
\_ Not equivalent--key diff is "diversified". You could easily
lose money in real estate in selected markets, even long term.
\_ I think that land ownership has been the traditional way to
store and transfer wealth. The traditional ways to create
wealth have been trade and military conquest (which is just
taking someone else's wealth).
\_ I did mention conquest. Trade is another way but requires
more effort and skill than sitting on land and waiting.

3/26 My car has about 145K miles and so far I've had to do oil change
every 3K miles. I'm thinking of switching to synthetic because
I've heard that 10K synthetic oil change is equivalent to a regular
3K change. I hate having to get an oil change every 3K and if I
can extend it to 10K it would be worth 2X the $ I pay for. Has
anyone switched to synthetic yet?
\_ I am running on synthetic, but not exactly for the reason
you mentioned. Synthetic allows me to go about 7k miles
between changes. One way to gauge it is, wipe the level
check on a piece of paper, and you'll be able to see how
'dirty' the oil is. With regular, after 3-4k, the paper is
dirty. With synthetic, after 6k, it's still reasonably
clear. Synthetic also gives you more lubrication/power when
your engine has been running for a while, such as on long
trips.
\_ I use synthetic because I don't want to bring my car in as often.
It costs more but not that much more so it's worth it.

3/12 My iBook's time did not accomodate the time change, which seems
weird since it gets the time from <DEAD>time.apple.com<DEAD>. How can I
have it change automatically (i.e. not set it manually)? Thanks.
\_ <DEAD>time.apple.com<DEAD> will only give you GMT. Your OS will still
\_ http://tinyurl.com/3cckho will only give you GMT. Your OS will still
need to adjust for the new DST.
\_ Get the system update, your time zone files are screwed up.
\_ Got it. Thanks. -op

3/8 Damn this Bush economy! http://csua.org/u/i78
\_ note the number is the SUM net worth for ALL households, not the
median percentage gain/loss per household.
this would imply that those households with million-dollar+ hedge
fund accounts would absorb much of the gain, just like they have
much of the $$$ anyway, deserved or not.
E.g., between 2001 - 2004, net worth for the median American
family increased only 1.5% after inflation (took three years!).
What you may be falsely implying is that in 2006, in just one year,
the median American family saw a 7.4% increase in net worth.

3/1 I lost some money in currency trading last year (about $1000).
How do you exactly write it off for tax purposes?
\_ Gambling loss. Did you have a receipt or any written documentation
to back you up in case of an audit?
\_ I have statements, and I have the statement that lists the
initial deposit as well as the final withdraw amount
(less). Is this sufficient? I thought this category is the
same as stock-market loss instead of gambling loss? ok thx.
\_ I think that would be a capitol loss and can only be used to offset
capitol gains, but you can "save" it until you have some cap gains
to offset.

2/5 Fuck Bush, R congress, Microsoft, Redhat <=AS2.1, et. al.. The
DST change is going to make my life hell.
\_ I actually like it. I think it is overdue. I want evening
daylight, not daylight at 5:00am.
\_ What are you talking about?
\_ IYHTAYDW
\_ If You Have To Ask You Don't... Whoah?
\_ Time zone change? Did you mean the start and end of Daylight
Savings time instead?
\_ Yes. To your OS, there is no difference between the two.
\_ The change of law that has moved the dates to start DST.
\_ I thought M$ has downloads to update Windozes for this.
\_ What about all the money/resources wasted to make new
'gadgets' that are aware of this stupid new DST? Have to
replace your damned alarm clock for crying out loud!
\_ Nah.. That's not "waste"! That's "reducing inventory"!
\_ Hello ignorant person. This is hardly the first time DST has
been changed. In about 8 seconds of searching you'll find the
history of day light savings and see just how far back and how
many times this has happened. I suggest searching for "History
of day light savings". BTW, when you blame Bush and R's for
every trivial thing you sound like Chicken Little. No one wants
to hear the real complaints when you moan and cry and finger
point about everything from DST changes to the ocean not being
quite the right shade of pink in the mornings.
\_ Wow, someone's hyperbole detector is on the fritz. Fuck off,
little man.

1/28 If US currency is not backed by gold, what is the purpose of
spending money on upkeeping and protecting gold in Fort Knox?
\_ Ha you saw the history channel special too. ok im going
to quit watching tv now.
\_ Yay someone else besides me likes to watch the History
Channel. It is the best! I like Modern Marvels and
anything about Hitler. How about you?
\_ It's a honey pot for evil geniuses
\_ What are you asking? They should just leave a few gazillion lbs
of gold on the front lawn? The gold still has value and IMHO
provides an unofficial backing of our currency so debt buyers and
cash holders know the USG has something of value sitting around
just in case.
\- this is pretty humorous.
\- right on the "it has to be kept somewhere" part [and a number
of monetary authorites agreed not to liquidate their gold
reserves, even though it is sort of a loser investment],
but i dont think your "imho" part is really true w.r.t. to
the us. the total gold reserves are for example probably in
the 1-2% of the us debt ... that's not really amaerica's
collateral. the importance and exact reason for govts to
hold gold has changed over time and i think it is fair to
say the imp has generally declined. it's not reasonable to
go much beyond this, but you might look up "special drawing
rights" for what "replaced" gold [although we've sort of
moved beyond SDRs too].
\_ Only 1-2%? Is that a real estimate or are you totally
guessing? My totally random guess is that it would be
higher but I haven't had a chance to tour Fort Knox in
a while to count bars.
\- the us debt is approaching 9 trillion. why dont you
look up the price of gold today and calculate how
many tons of gold 1-2% is. note: gold isnt measured
in "regular" oz. if you dont even know there is more
gold at the ny fed than at ft knox, it's hard to take
your totally random guesses especially seriously.
your totally random geusses especially seriously.
\_ I said it was a totally random guess. Why would
you take it seriously?
\_ So you are saying "you first impression of
me should have been 'i am dumb' and you should
have ignored me." ... ? Can you sign your posts
with a unique identifier so we can file this
away for future reference?
BTW, what is your guess at the percentage?
note: this ignores the obvious fact that if you
note: this obviously ignores the fact that if you
had to sell any appreciable fraction of the gold
to cover a debt, the price would collapse. on the other
to cover a dept, the price would collapse. on the other
and a lot of indian women would be really happy.
\_ They're all accounted for and each room has a seal with
the amount of gold in it. The latest estimate of the net
worth in Fort Knox is about (in today's dollar)
100 billions.
\_ I thought the lions share of the gold was removed (for the same
reason you just mentioned, the US not needing it for money backing).
Now the just store bullion cubes there (can never have too much soup
imo). -mrauser
\_ Mmmmm... soup!
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bullion_Depository
\_ "In volatile market, only stable investment... is PORN!" -- Avenue Q

12/26 Thomas Sowell's take on the fixation of income disparity.
http://csua.org/u/hs4
\- this is such a bullshit essay. he is mischaracterizing the
"it makes no sense" line. the question is about equillibria
and looking for explanations for "out-of-equillibria" behavior.
for example for sports stars or hollywoods starts, there is
actually an explanation offered for the giant paychecks of
megastars, and that is the "winner-takes-all" or "superstar"
\_ "prize economy" is the phrase
you are looking for
theory [i dont know anything about sports, but the rough
explanation is megastars like MJ dont just help you win games,
MJ sell tickets, sell merchandise, sell the brand ... simlarly
if you hire tom cruise-level stars, they arent just fulfilling
an acting role, but casting them serves as advertising etc ...
people magazing, entertainment tonight etc will advertise your
movie because you have cast tom cruise. i.e. there are not
really many substitutes for these types. there are a limited
number. YMWTGF(sherwin rosen, economics of superstars).]
this is more what an honest discussion of compensation issue
and trends looks like: http://csua.org/u/hs5
and to go from "these salaries seem historically high" to
"govt dept of regulation salaries" is obviously a textbook
strawman.
also the "famous essay" about the pencil was actually made
famous by milton friedman. i dont think it was especially
famous until he talked about it in his free to choose show.
\_ Everyone should be paid according to their needs. Sorry,
I just read Atlas Shrugged. ;)

12/15 Shadow Statistics-- Ben Bernanke, Fed chairman, recently delivered
an upbeat view of the U.S. economy. It was cheerful, optimistic...
and delusional.
http://prudentbear.com/archive_comm_article.asp?category=Guest+Commentary&content_idx=53549http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm
\_ Ok, assuing one buys this, what does one invest in? Stocks are
out, real estate (at least around here) is over-inflated.
India's economy is over-heated. I don't trust the Chinese
govt., so I don't want to invest there. Gold? Euro stocks?
Japan?
\_ AK's and canned food.
\_ I just dumped money in Canada, perhaps too late as Canada
has been solid for years now, but I think still a safe
play. Japan also looks promising, although it has looked
that way for years.
\_ If you believe in what this guy is saying, you should
head to the hills and try living as a subsistance farmer.
He makes some valid points, but waaaaay overstates his
case imho.
\_ you don't think Japan's economy and Chinese economy is not
interwind? You think Chinese economy exist in a vaccum?

11/30 I'm willing to wager $100 that Soda will be up for another 3 months
or less before it is completely down for at least 3 days again.
\_ I'm willing to bet it will be within 3 weeks.
\- I'm willing to bet it will be down for months this time around.
and most services will be fucked forever. -linxu
\_ it's too bad there isn't a simple http://tradesports.com thing to handle
futures trading on something like this. i'd really be interested
in one with a few more issues that big sites are too chickenshit
to host, like: Enter recession (two consec quarters neg GDP) by
Q207, or NASDAQ below 2,200 by Feb 28, 2007.
2Q07, or NASDAQ below 2,200 by Feb 28, 2007.

11/6 The new 007 doesn't have a strong handsome look like Sean Connery
and Timothy Dalton. Instead he looks like an average Joe, like me!
This makes me feel really good about myself. Hooray! -average joe
\_ Have you watched any of the Sean Connery Bond films recently?
Casino Royale is technically the first of the Bond stories, since
it begins before Bond is a double-0 agent. I think that as a nod
to this they cast Daniel Craig who is more in the Sean Connery mold,
i.e. strong and something of a bastard, than either Timothy Dalton
or Pierce Brosnan who, compared to Connery are kind of pussies.
-dans
-gay dans
\_ I for one welcome the change. I'm sick and tired of my gf
saying how handsome Piercie looks. -jealous dude
\_ I don't think that Craig is really in the Sean Connery mold.
He seems too muscular and brutish, more like a thug than an
intelligence officer. I'm willing to give him a chance, but
I don't really have high expectations b/c the trailer makes
the movie look like yaActionFlick, which is not what a Bond
movie is/was. I actually liked Brosnan in GoldenEye and TND,
but he was terrible in the last two movies. I'd say he was
my 3d favorite bond behind Connery and Moore (yes I liked
Roger Moore, he was humorous).
To OP - I don't know many "average Joes" who look like this:
http://entimg.msn.com/i/gal/CasinoRoyale/CasinoRoyale_400.jpg
(but I am gay, so YMMV)
-stmg
\_ A lot of women I know seem to think he's pretty handsome, although
most of my female friends who care were hoping for Clive Owen or
Robbie Williams (?!?) One even mentioned Ewan McGregor but I guess
he's too much of a prettyboy. -John
\_ Obi-Wan as 007?!? Inconceivable! -stmg
\_ What? I see no mention of Alec Guinness anywhere in this
thread.
\_ Okay, Young Obi-Wan as Young 007!?!? Inconceivable! -stmg

11/03 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227282,00.html
Unemployment Rate Hits 5 1/2 Year Low at 4.4 Percent as
Economy Adds 92,000 Jobs
\_ See? Trickle-down economy works. Tax cut works.
\_ The current unemployment numbers are totally cooked. According
to the Economist, if unemployment today was measured the way
that it was in the 70s, current unemployment would be 7%.
I prefer to use overall employment, since it is harder to
manipulate, and that is down over the last two years about
two percent.
\_ How were they calculated in the 70s vs today and when did
it change? 7% is still pretty good.
\_ No, we want to socialize everything like the Europeans,
Canadians because that way our unemployment goes up!
\_ How were they calculated in the 70s vs today and when
did it change? 7% is still pretty good.

10/19 Ok it's REALLY time to short GOOG -not the original short guy
\_ On 10/19 (when you wanted to short GOOG), GOOG's stock price
was 420.23 at the start of that day. It closed on 10/19 at
426.06. It opened on 10/20 at 458.99. Closed on 10/20 at
459.67.
So assuming that you actually want to make money instead of losing
money, I'd say that the answer to your question is this:
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
\_ Is this you? Price was around $420
http://csua.com/?entry=44745
\_ http://www.lyricsfreak.com/i/iron+maiden/die+with+your+boots+on_20068030.html
\_ http://tinyurl.com/y8grrh (lyricsfreak.com)
\_ Why would you short a company that just reported outstanding
revenue and earnings growth? -tom
\_ Shorting isn't my thing but in general because they get 99% of
their revenue from ads which could dry up overnight for any
number of reasons. There is more to evaluating a company than
spreadsheets.
\_ Are you also suggesting shorting all the TV networks?
I don't think there's any likelihood that Google's ad
revenue dries up in the short term; they are clearly the
dominant force in Internet advertising and there is no
credible challenger.
More to the point, if your concern is that Google's ad
revenue may dry up, why was that not true when the stock
was at 100, 200, 300, 400? Why get in the way of a frieght
train *now*? -tom
\_ The TV networks have an age old and somewhat predictable
ad model. The internet is not TV. It's only barely got
off the ground. So it went from IPO 80ish to 400+. Past
performance, especially something like the stock value,
does not in any way guarantee future performance. In 98
everyone thought it was a New Economy and "all the old
rules are broken! Its the Intarweeb ya know!" Anyway, no,
I have never traded nor would ever trade google. They hide
too much information to make an informed decision about
their true value.
\_ My point is not that Google will go up indefinitely;
it's that shorting should be done of companies with
it's that shorting should be done to companies with
significant, identifiable business problems, not
companies making gobs of money and growing rapidly.
It is virtually impossible for a common investor to
time the turn of a market or a stock correctly. -tom
\_ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/21/AR2006102100936_pf.html
But yes, I do agree that one should not try to time
an individual stock ever or the market in general.
Trying to time a secretive company like google would
be financially suicidal. Their stock price will
continue to rise... until it doesn't. Once the "it
is google! it is the New Economy Intarweeb!" shine
rubs off, their stock will plummet and drop back to
something reasonable, but no one can say day that
will be. It could be next quarter, it could be
years. Check out the link, it describes internet
ad business's time bomb waiting to go off.
\_ For me, the scariest thing about Google isn't
their business model but their approach to
"managing" their engineers - and I use those
quotation marks wisely. -!tom
\_ How so? It isn't all that different from a lot
of other companies created in that time.
\_ Yeah and most of them have failed. The
no management approach to management might
be appropriate for a startup, but I just
don't see how a company of 5000 can
operate that way.
\_ Most of them failed for business reasons.
Their engineers mostly created all sorts
of amazingly cool stuff. Don't blame
lack of engineer skill or dedication for
the dotcom bust.
\_ Believe me, I don't. I blame bad
management and insane financial
expectations. But aren't these
exactly Google's problems now?
\_ Please explain.

10/4 Just FYI, the Dow has hit an all-time high. In this crappy Bush
economy, damn him.
\_ 1. median income went down. 2. average income only increased by
something lik 0.3% while the inflation is running around 2-3%.
3. housing price is dropping and interest is raising.
For those who is making less than $200,000 a year, life is actually
kind of sucks.
\_ My life doesn't suck.
\_ And it only took 7 years...
\_ Try 5 years. And recall what happened in those 5 years.
\_ Jan 2000 - Oct 2006.. Nearly 7 years. Also, using the DOW
as your measure for "the economy" is.. stupid.
\_ As soon as that brings in taxes that cancel out the huge tax cuts
and let us stop deficit spending like irresponsible college students
I'll be impressed.
\_ The tax cuts just weren't that big. The poor don't pay income
taxes, the middle class get soaked of course and the truly rich
never paid income taxes of any note. It's a nice idea though.
Imagine if Mrs. Kerry actually paid the same percentage on her
taxes that normal people do and didn't have a zillion loopholes.
\_ The cuts weren't just in income taxes...
\_ So if they weren't big, then they should already have been
cancelled out and we should have budget surpluses and be
able to start paying off the Debt. Right? (Not talking about
mid-year surplus B.S.)
\_ Gosh, because spending went up? Waaaay up? naah. I'd
still like Mrs. Kerry to pay the same percentage of her
income in taxes that normal people do.
\_ And I'd rather that she pay a high percentage
commensurate with the increased value of the benefit
she gets from having a society that doesn't burn down
her house for hoarding wealth. -Dem

10/1 Casino Royale Trailer is up:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/casinoroyale/trailer1a
I miss Sean, Bond is not just yaActionHero.
\_ Yeah, that's the trailer that makes me think that this guy will be
George Lasenby (sp?) II
\_ Does new Bond's perpetual Zoolanderish lip pucker annoy anyone else?
\_ Does new Bond's perpetual Zoolanderish lip pucker annoy anyone
else?
\_ I can't stand the new guy. Why did they have to switch from
Brosnon? Was he getting too old?
\_ I liked the new guy in Layer Cake and Munich. Give him a
chance. --erikred, who also like Pierce Brosnan
\_ Well, I'll still watch it. I always watch Bond and
Star Trek movies (even the odd numbered ones!) -stmg

9/21 Dear socialists. Please stop your childish mockery of the
invisible hand. It is getting old. -free market supporter
\_ You are a tool, and are the reason it's fun to mock free market
supporters. The ideas of free market economics outlasted the
USSR, have spread across the globe, and have won out again and again
in the brutal international marketplace of ideas. They can also
survive The Hand that Wanks the Motd, and they can survive without
your whining.
\_ why don't we abolish SEC, EPA, FDA, FAA, and National Highway
Safety Board, let the market decide the minimum safety
requirements and insider trading?
\_ The proletariat will rise up and crush you, capitalist running
dog. --mao
\_ the reason why I am a leftist is precisely this. if we don't
try to narrow the gap between the rich and poor, at some
point proletariats will rise up.
\_ Actually, you're wrong. There are almost no pure free markets.
In the "market of ideas", the winner is really that the best
economic system is a mix of free market and gov't regulation.
Extremism in either direction causes much suffering.
\_ I'm not advocating pure free markets, or any other economic
system. I'm just pointing out that op's whining is idiotic.
I didn't start this idiotic thread.
\_ The invisible hand can not be resisted. --the invisible hand

9/19 Wtf is Etrade charging me $40 for not trading, and can I move my
holdings out of their grimy, usurious hands?
\_ I transfered all my holdings from Etrade to Ameritrade several
years ago b/c it just didn't like dealing w/ them. There is
a transfer in kind form that you will need to fill out. Usually
the new brokerage will be able to give you the necessary info.
the fucking new brokerage will be able to give you the necessary info.
\_ Same here, moved to Scottrade. Just make sure which ever
company you move to does not have the same stupid
company you move to does not have the fucking same stupid
"inactivity" fee.
\_ You can also ask ameritrade for free trades for opening up
a new account (or transferring shares/money into it).

9/3 Most people think the housing boom will turn into a slowdown, and
some think that it'll crash. In either case, what do you think the
most likely scenario for rich investors to invest next? Gold?
Silver? Energy? Or maybe Tech stocks all over again?
\_ Definitely gold. Tech stocks are long dead.

9/3 Hi motd. I'm in my mid 20s and I have about $35K cash. I already
have a decent place to live and I have a car, thus I don't want to
spend my cash on anything other than investments. What is a good
investment strategy for someone like me? Thanks.
\_ How soon might you need to use the cash? I'd think about buying
property, although the timing is not so good right now.
\_ in the long term, just dump all your cash into QQQQ and/or SPDR
electronic index fund. If you want be a bit more advanturous,
you can spend 1/4 or 1/3 on GLD, then the rest in index fund.
Don't wait on the side-line for too long, don't try to pull money
out when the market moves ups and down.
\_ How did you come up with 35K in cash while still in your mid-20s
and presumably saddled with a mortgage? Are you a hooker?
\_ Yes, I am a hooker. -hooker
\_ It makes sense if you assume this person is renting, even better,
a room in a house, even better, sharing a room, even better, got
the car as a gift/used from parents. Even if you didn't invest,
you could have much more than $35K in savings if you were frugal.
How many 26-year-olds do you see wandering around with a mortgage
(even interest-only) without parental assistance or special
circumstances?
\_ It's called "not living in California". A 90,000 dollar
condo is not out of reach for a 26 year old.
\_ Wow. A wonderful 90,000 dollar condo in the middle of the
paradise that is Oklahoma. Your life must be wonderful.
\_ Or maybe she is a hooker.
\_ One can only hope so. -John Karr
\_ Depends on how cautious you are. It might be a good idea to get
a short term (3-mo) CD for part of the money b/c interest rates
on CDs are now about 5%.
\_ Depends on how cautious you are. It might be a good idea to get
a short term (3-mo) CD for part of the money b/c interest rates
on CDs are now about 5%. I would put the rest into Mutual Funds
or QQQQ.
\_ I know nothing about finance, and had never heard of QQQQ, so I
looked it up. Looking at the following graph:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=QQQQ&t=my
I'm perplexed as to why anyone would want to invest in that.
Can someone explain?
\_ as scary as it may sound, but this is about as good as you
can do. FYI, a money manager who can consistantly beat the
market by 1% is considered pretty good.
\_ QQQQ is an index fund that tracks the Nasdaq. To the extent
that the U.S. economy has growth prospects, the Nasdaq is
a fairly safe bet. -tom
\_ So are you saying that the graph in the above link is
wrong? If you had invested almost any time in the last
six years, you would lose money. Or at least that's my
interpretation of the data.
\_ If you are in your mid 20s and you don't need the
money in the short term, the stock market has
traditionally been the best place to keep your
money. You need to have a longer time horizon than
5 years. -tom
\_ I disagree. If one invested in late 2002, one would
have made a decent amount of money. I certainly did.
The other things about QQQQ is that it is not a long
term investment. It is preferable to trade somewhat
regularly to realize your gains.
BTW, I meant to say you should put the remainder
into QQQQ and Mutual Funds (not 'or'). Mutual Funds
provide much more long term stability, but the returns
(on ave.) are not as good as trading QQQQ frequently.
I personally hold a few "growth" or "tech" mutual
funds, a few bond funds and a few mixed funds in
addition to a limited number of QQQQ b/c I am a very
risk averse investor.
\_ Mutual funds has higher cost. ETF like QQQQ and/or
SPDR is still the best bet.
\_ "Best bet" is relative. QQQQ or SPDR have some-
what more volatility than bond funds and some
conservative "growth" funds. If one is risk
averse, mutual funds are safer, which (imo) is
worth the marginally higher cost.
\_ not if you're in your 20s and don't need the
money right now. -tom
\_ I disagree. I have been a conservative
investor all my life (starting at age
18). I may never become a millionaire,
but I have also never lost any money
on my safe investments (I even made an
ave. of 8% during the bust years). To
me, the feeling of security is worth
much more than the potential "upside."
Perhaps to you it is not. One size does
not fit all.
\_ mutual funds aren't any safer than QQQQ.
-tom
\_ most do not have so much Tech.
\_ I have been an agressive investor for
6 years and I just made my first million.
You should be a millionaire by the time
you retire, at the very least.
\_ You are also a bad speller, and motd
entry over-writer.
\_ FLPSX. I used to invest on FDGFX, until I realized that FLPSX was
doing better in both boom times and bomb times. So I switched over.
\_ Want to put you in touch with a financial advisor?

7/21 I understand valet tipping is now customarily $2 (up from $1).
Is it customary to tip the valet if, let's say, there is a required
$2.50 or $3 fee to use the valet, and you're driving let's say an
1999 Camry? What about required fees of $5 or higher?
What do you do?
\_ To avoid this stupid discussion again, look:
http://csua.com/?entry=27200http://csua.com/?entry=42275http://csua.com/?entry=42038http://csua.com/?entry=41928http://csua.com/?entry=36732http://csua.com/?entry=34977http://csua.com/?entry=34956http://csua.com/?entry=33171
http://csua.com/?entry=26270
http://csua.com/?entry=18819
\_ Generally, tips are independent of any "mandatory" charge. A
gratuity is a thank you for good service and is voluntary,
I don't care what anyone says. -John
\- i'm sort of curious what your actual
tipping range is in USA restaurants.
say what percentage of the time do you
tip under 10%? BTW, do you also consider
wedding gifts optional? was it holube
who considered wedding gifts optional
but considers tips "mandatory"?
\_ was it passb who considers "holube" a clever
insult? Wedding gifts are optional if you
didn't attend the wedding. -tom
\_ They are mandatory if you did attend?
\_ By etiquette, yes. -tom
john advisory: are you from SF? the situation
in SF has gotten sort of complicated with the
minimum wage law change since it doesnt have
a tip credit ... it basically takes money away
from the worst paid employees [busboys, dishwasher
etc] and xfers more money to the much-higher-paid
and certainly over minwage frontroom wait staff.
one restaurant owner [i think at incanto] responded
by creating a "mandatory" service charge, which
made a lot of people go insane. then again most
people cant think in economically rational
manner and people seem to have amazing ability
for self-serving delusion per the corkage
article recently discussed in the motd.
\_ OK, we'll just cut your salary in half, then, and expect you
to make it up on tips. -tom
\_ Bad example; I'm an independent consultant and if I don't
deliver, or provide crappy service, I don't get paid. Why
should I be compelled to pay someone anything beyond the
indicated price if he's a surly shit? -John
\_ Gee, I didn't know I could refuse to pay my independent
consultants if they are surly. Does it say that in
your contract?
You are compelled to pay according to whatever the local
tipping rules are, because their salaries have been
cut with the expectation that they will make the rest
on tips. The U.S. would be a better place if waiters
earned a real wage and tipping were truly gratuitous,
but they don't and it's not. -tom
\_ No, you're able to not pay them if they do not
provide the service they are contracted to do. In
the case of service personnel, part of their job
is to provide me with civil, competent service. If
they do not, it should reflect on their earnings. And
tipping is fine, it gives me a chance to stiff the
guy throwing a snit while serving me. -John
\_ But it's not OK for someone to stiff you for
throwing a snit, of course. -tom
\_ Apples and oranges. A waiter might get a
$100 tip or a $0 tip. A better waiter will
usually make more than a poor one. I happen
to think that waiters actually benefit from
the current system. A decent waiter can make
$60K/year easy. Without tips, it's probably
half that.
\- 1. the true distribution is not $100 or $0.
and you need to talk in terms of percentages
anyway. a server at a boulevard may get
a $100 tip but will never ever get $0.
the waiter at the neighborhood pasta restaurant
is never ever going to get $100. so i think
the tip distribution has probably 90% of its
mass in the 12%-22% range. 2. i think tip
pooling among the frontroom staff is not
uncommon, so the poor waiter can be
shielded. 3. the waiters even benfitted
more from the fact that there is no
tip credit in CA when it comes to min wage
[this is for waiters at decent places].
4. i think $60k is a bit high for your
waiter salary estimate [do waiters
work 40hr weeks?].
See e.g.
work 40hr weeks?]. See e.g.
http://http://www.chowhound.com/topics/show/28844
for some details on reasonably high end
restaurant operation. As well as:
http://csua.org/u/gi2
\_ If you have a crappy waiter, SOP is to give
the manager a tip and tell him to make sure
the bus boy gets it. Stiffing bus boys is
king lame. And Partha, my mom has a
culinary placement company in SF, so I'm
well aware of the tipping & wage situation.
I'm also aware that a good waiter can pull
upwards of $100k, a lot of it effectively
tax free. -John
\- What percentile would you guess $60k
and $100k are in terms of waiter incomes
in SF?
\- What fraction of waiters in SF would
you say make $60k or more? $100k or more?
Yes, I realize there are escalatory
ways of dealing with exceptionally
lame service, but I dont think most
people resort do that ... and they are
pretty rare events i'd say. i agree
routing the tip to the mgs is a good
routing the tip to the mgr is a good
way to deal with the situation.
[I personally weigh intentional things
like snooty obnoxiousness [Aqua] more
heavily than minor incompetence [dropped
plate ... that stuff happens]]. I've
sort of decided to put up with less
deliberately bad service and walk out
of places.
BTW, I do agree with you than the getting
rid of tipping is probably not the way
to go, although I dont think the
status quo is perfect. It's sort of
like rent control ... there are pros
and cons ... one regime not unambiguously
better than the other.
and cons ... one regime not "pareto
superior" to the other.
\_ I'm not interested in how much a
waiter makes, or what percentage of
waiters make >$60k (a good number in
more upscale restaurants). That is
not my problem. In a restaurant, I am
paying for the experience as much as
for the food. If a waiter is being
a shit (surprise, it does happen), I
should make sure the owner knows this
(maybe through the manager) as he has
a financial stake in the business. In
the meantime, I will not give "hey,
thanks, good job" money to a waiter,
bellhop, cabbie or anyone else who
gives me a shitty attitude (note that
I'm not talking about incompetence or
inexperience here.) There is no
obligation to tip, but if you feel
your service was ok or better, some
conventions apply. -John
\- I understand what you are saying.
I am just sort of curious what
%age of the time or how many times
per year the service hits the
threashold of not tipping,
rerouting the tip etc. In the past
15 years say, i can think of maybe
10ish incidents ... in one case
[in durant court] we left a 5cent
tip that was thrown at us as we
we leaving, but i really havent
caused a scene in a med/highend
place. [sometimes because i was
somebody else guest, in other cases
because the management made it up
sort of [free bottle of wine] etc.
if this is something you do 1-2%
od the time [like inb my case],
od the time [like in my case],
then it's more sort of an ad hoc
reaction, than your "standard
behavior for bad service". i think
the place where i most frquently
get annoyed are bars where the
bartender is lame about imple-
menting FIFO. i guess i have caused
a scene in a high end place but we
left a very very large tip :-).
Not often, to be honest--maybe about 10 times in the last 5 _/
years. I have a pretty high tolerance; usually I just leave
a lower tip if service is really bad enough to make me notice.
However, we frequently go to nice restaurants, and I know what I can
expect for a given price, so I don't hesitate to ask for a different
waiter. I've only walked out on a place once or twice, and usually
I'll tell the manager if something really pisses me off (normally
they're very cool about it.) I dislike waiters being snippy, being
ignored, having food take a very long time even when we ask about it,
pissy reactions when a dish isn't acceptable, and worst of all, "do
you want your change?" The problem is that most people feel a bit
intimidated and think they owe the waiter something, and are afraid
to speak up when something really sucks. -John
\_ Once a waitress argued with us that a certain item was not on the
menu. We said that it was. She said it was not. We again told
her it was. She again said it was not. We asked for the menu.
She was wrong. This was a fairly nice restaurant (Campanile in
LA). The manager overheard the whole thing and gave us free
dessert. That is acceptable and she got a 15% tip. Since two
of my sisters (and their two boyfriends) are in the restaurant
business (GM, chef, waitress, and sommelier) in nice SF
restaurants I can definitely say that $60K isn't a problem if
you are experienced and that you really shouldn't leave less
than 10% even if the service sucked. However, you should
complain to the GM. It is the GM's job to make things right.
Also, without tipping, I really do think waiters/waitresses
would make a whole lot less money and as a result the quality
of service (already poor in most cases) would get worse as
professionals left for other jobs. Tipping works well, because
when the restaurant does well so does everyone and when the
restaurant does poorly then everyone suffers. No sense keeping
waiters on at $60K+ when business is bad.
\_ Only once in the last five years have I not tipped, and that
was at the Grill place across the street from the Piedmont
Landmark Theater (formerly a Rolling Dunes): the entire wait
staff were rude and indolent. We did not tip, and we will not
be back. --erikred
\_ Funny, that's in my neighberhood, I go there all the time,
and get fine and friendly service. Chris, the owner and
often bartender, is the only shop owner on the street
(except for the yogurt place) who knows me and greets me
on sight.
One thing to remember is that waiters have to deal with
obnoxious customers a lot more often than you have to
deal with obnoxious waiters. We all have bad days. -tom
\_ Agreed, but this was beyond the pale. This was mid-day,
and the fan above our table was casting a shadow that was
making all four of us dizzy and queasy. We asked a waiter
if it would be possible to turn it off; he went off to ask
someone, but never came back to tell us one way or the
other. We asked another waiter and finally the person who
looked like the manager at the time, and were similarly
blown off. At the same time, our orders arrived and were
wrong; even though there were only three groups of
customers there including us, no one ever came by to see
if we needed more water, more food, or even the bill. We
eventually went to the bar to ask for our bill, and when
we paid, we left no tip. Please understand, I have friends
who are waiters and I am sympathetic to the plight of the
working wait staff, but this level of silliness was
untenable. --erikred
\- i think "routing around" the problem works when the problem
is a lame/snooty/etc waiter, but there are some establishements
that have that problem [farralon, aqua, various medium level but
hot and packed placed in the mission], i wonder if they will do
anything. or even at say zacharies, a place i think is sort of
customer unfriendly. re: the "feel they owe their waiter
something" ... i think in part they feel they will be thought
of a cheep [perhaps "justifying" in the waiters mind thinking
"these guys are declasse"] if they just leave a small tip without
elaborating on the reason. and most people may not have the
personality to say something beyond the tip.
\_ Weird. I have been to Farralon three times and Aqua once
and all four times I had great service. How many times
have you been to Aqua? -ausman
\_ I, too, had superb service at Aqua the one time I went.
--erikred
\_ If you leave a 10% tip they definitely get the idea
that you are either dissatisfied or declasse. You have
to tell the manager why if you want them to know which.
All I am saying is that 10% is low enough that they will
know something's up. I know people who stiff the
waitstaff and I've only do that in an extreme situation
(e.g. the one time I was asked to not patronize a
particular restaurant ever again). As for Zachary's, it
is very unfriendly to customers. The cash only policy is
evidence of that.
\- along with no RSVP, no pitchers of soda,
exploiting children etc.
\_ Again, stiffing the "waitstaff" is lame. The busboy
can't help it if the waiter's a prick. Nor can the
waiter if the restaurant has crappy policies. Use your
own judgment, and as psb says, let the GM know, they
need to be aware of this sort of stuff. But I've been at
Farallon 7-8 times and never had bad service. -John
\_ Tipping is fundamentally a way to enforce class
structure. The wealthy (restaurant/valet/hotel/taxi
patrons) want to have the right to punish the servants
for insolence. Look at the sense of entitlement
displayed in the comments in this thread; it's really
pretty sad. -tom
\_ Uh...I want to punish someone who gives me crappy
service and bad attitude. In shops, I can't do
this to the sales clerk directly, in restaurants I
can. Don't turn this into some pseudo-Marxist class
warfare claptrap. I's a not tryin to keep the po'
folk in they's place, just have a nice dinner
without some snotty shit spoiling it. 15% says
"you did a reasonable job, thanks". 10% = "you did
not do a good job." Anything less, including 0% =
"you suck, fuck you." That's my right as a
customer. -John
\_ Ponder these two questions:
1) How did the tipping rules get developed in
the U.S.? Why is the waiter tipped and
the shopkeeper not?
2) Why are relatively large tips customary
in the U.S. and generally not elsewhere? -tom
\_ The shop clerk (not shopkeeper, wrong
comparison) is not tipped because he is
not providing a service in the same class
as the waiter, shoe shine guy, taxi driver,
etc.; many salesmen also get commission.
\_ Commission is not the same as tipping.
And what is different about the class
of service being provided by a taxi
driver vs. a shop clerk? Non-circular
definition, please. -tom
\_ The shop clerk is selling me an item.
His manner of selling it, strictly
speaking, is not part of the overall
experience I am paying for. With a
waiter or cab driver, it is (how nice
is the service, how smooth is the
ride.) Same with shoe-shine guys,
or valets. What's your point? -John
\_ That's a crock; plenty of shops
provide personal service at or
above the level of shoe-shine-boy.
(Like a shoe store, for one). -tom
\- i agree there is something "american" about
the tipping system ... compared to a more
"socialist" system [modulo tip pooling], but
i think holube is overstating things. where i
think there is a class system is the disparity bt/
frontroom staff and the often minority back
of the house people like the dish washing crew
who are paid lower and certainly work hard
and get no part of the tip pool. under a sort
of rawlsian theory i'd rather see increased
spoils going to them rather than the wiatstaff
[in re: sf min wage change]. and i also think
at reasonable standard resturants the waitstaff
are not just passive agents to their fate ...
i think some probably consciously tailor
behavior to who the expect better tips from ...
and if they guess wrong, well they deserve to
lose out a bit. [i've seen white businessmen
in their 50s get much better service than
i did when in my late 20s at places like aqua.
analogous to the bartender who give better
service to hot chicks who are lousy tippers ...
at least in cash.]
\_ Hello, there is no tipping in Japan and yet the wait
staff are still professional and polite. I see no
reason to reward wait staff here who cannot do this.
I'm not expecting anything more than civility and
politeness; I'm certainly not looking for servility.
\_ Paying 15% in the U.S. isn't "rewarding" wait
staff; it's paying their wage. More than 15%
could reasonably be construed as reward. -tom
\_ This is an semi-invisible system in that the
general public is not usually made aware that
wait staff's salaries have been depleted to
the point where tips mean the difference
surviving or not. I agree that the situation
needs to fixed (i.e., adjust wages to comp),
but relying on customer support of an
unpublished system sounds broken. That said,
I generally tip 20%. --erikred
\_ It's not really an unpublished system;
it's part of etiquette. I agree that
the system is untenable, and I think it's
particularly onerous because it has its
roots in slavery and the culture surrounding
it. I certainly don't think I get better
service in the U.S. compared to overseas
in countries where tipping is not
customary (because they pay full wages).
-tom
\_ In many other countries, being a
waiter is a career choice. In the
US (except at high-end restaurants)
it is not. The quality of service
reflects this. However, I can't say
that I've gotten really great
service at dive restaurants in, say,
Europe either. I think your ideas
about the nature of tipping are
crazy. As I said before, I think
most waiters make out better by
earning tips than they would without.
\_ It is basically unpublished. There are
so many immigrants here in the bay area
for example that it's not realistic to
expect everyone to be on the same page
wrt tipping. I see that clearly with
coworkers. They have no idea. I never
really analyzed it in detail either...
sure you see your parents and others
do the 15% thing but the details are
not explained. How many people know
how the tips apply to busboys? What
do you do in buffet restaurants? The
tipping system seems like a good one
for a more homogeneously civilized
society but not apropos now. (One
coworker from India thought it was
ok to tip almost nothing at a lunch
joint. Of course he also liked to talk
about the dirt-cheap food and services
in India where regular engineers had
full-time chauffeurs etc.)
\- having a chauffeur in india is like
having somebody mow your lawn here.
but your major point stands: indians
treat service class people like
shit and tip like shit. the latter
is a social norm diffcult to change
but there is no excuse for the
former. a dramatic case of this is
how westerners and indians deal with
say trekking guides and porters ...
on the other hand, i think indians
are often pretty low maint when it
comes to "special requests".

7/20 My old 401k from my old employer offers about 12 plans whereas my
403b (I work in the government now) offers maybe 40 plans. I like
my 403b plans a lot better and think maybe I will rollover. Is this
a good/bad idea? Is it typical for 403b to offer more choices
than 401k? Any advice would be appreciated, thanks!
\_ How much do you trust the Government and the Banks to provide for
your retirement? As a government employee, I have decided my
level of trust: I do not buy into any official plan, save 2/3 of
my after tax income to cash, and spend it on supplies for the
comming apocalypse. Maybe you should take a look at who's calling
the shots with the U.S.'s money and consider doing the same.
\_ I'm not sure about that, but I do know that 403b plans are not
allowed to match employee contributions the way most 401k plans
do. This sucks. That said, my 403b plan offers 100s of
investment plan options, although it used to only offer 10 or
so.
\_ matching vs. not really doesn't matter now that OP has a 403b
job as far as rolling in is concerned. to the OP: taxes are
hard. get a professional. it'll cost you $200 at most and may
save you many tens of thousands.
\_ wow, so if we say some engineer is making $100K/year, that
$200 service may save at least $20K for that year?
or are you talking about dual-engineer-income?
\_ Not pp, but making a mistake on rolling over a
retirement can cost you a LOT of money on penalties.
Since op is asking for financial advice on motd,
there's a good chance op doesn't know about all the
possible pitfalls.
\_ Why would you rollover into the 403b? Roll over into an IRA
and then you'll have even *more* choices.
\_ 2nd that suggestion

7/18 GOOG will go up to 850 next summer and deflate back
to 750 before winter. -motd stock oracle
\_ Why?
(ObWhere'sShortGOOGAt100/200/300 Guy?) -tom
\_ If you try to reason why stock market is the way it is, you'll
never catch the wave. The reason why it'll go up to 850 has
nothing to do with any reasoning except for expected human
irrationality. -pp, hope to win the stock prediction award
\_ *boggle* holy shit, that's stupid.

7/11 Are there floor model bicycle pumps that can switch between high
volumn and high pressure? I can barely pump up to 85 PSI for my bike
and I'm wondering if they have a pump that can switch to pumping
high pressure, like some of those fancy portable pumps. ok thx.
\_ How would such a thing work? PV=nRT, with n,R,T relatively
constant. Since the compression cylinder would have to be
a constant volume initially, it seems like it's always going
to be a PITA to pump to high pressure, no matter what?
\_ Decent floor pumps don't have difficulty pumping to high pressure.
-tom
\_ I just returned my $25 made in China pump for a $30 made in
Germany pump. Both of them are hard to pump after 95PSI which
was a big disappointment. It took a lot of efforts to get up
to 115PSI. After 95PSI, if the pump handlebar isn't pressed
down completely, the pump handle forces it to pop back up
probably because the valve is opened up and the pressure built
from the tire pumps the handlebar upwards! Is this normal? -op
-tom
\_ No, it's not normal. I have something similar to
http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=21099&subcategory_ID=4360
and I can easily pump to 120psi. One thing: Presta valves
are much better for bikes than Schraeder (car-type) valves,
partly because of this specific issue. Switch to presta if
you are using Schraeder now. -tom
\_ Force required to pump = cross section of pump * pressure
Volume pumped = cross section * length
Max achievable pressure = Your strength / cross section of pump.
So you can see the only way you can get a high volume and a low
force requirement if to have a pump change diameter as pressure
increases. This is not a practical design.
\_ It's not impractical at all. One simple way to do it is to have
two chambers in the pump. Use both of them for high volume/low
pressure, or one chamber for low pressure/high volume. In case
you missed it, there are mini pumps on the market that
incorporate such a feature. There's no real point in putting
it into a floor pump since good floor pumps are so much easier
to use.
\_ My favorite floor pump is the Topeak Joe Blow Pro; I find it quite
easy to use to inflate my 120psi tires. To give you another data
point, I'd avoid the Silca Super Pista (people rave about how
serviceable it is, but it requires a lot of force, and you have to
hold the head on the valve, so you're left inflating with one hand).

7/7 If the Space Shuttle has no fuel tank, how does it change course when
it tries to leave orbit and return to earth? Thx.
\_ It has small thrusters on it.
\_ Yep, they jet compressed O2, IIRC. Basically they just nudge
themselves "down" a bit, coast down, nose up to come in w/
the heat tiles facing down, and then once in atmo and not falling
like a rock can use aileron/elevators and rudder.
\_ Those are the attitude adjustment nozzles. It also has a
main deorbiting thruster that uses a small amount of rocket
fuel.
\_ for 'in-space' maneuvering, it has two different sets of rockets.
The RCS thrusters for attitude adjustment and fine maneuvering,
and the OMS engines (two 'medium sized' rockets on the back) for
larger orbital adjustments. -ERic

6/20 http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/19/intel-0619markets13.html
I don't get it. Why does INTC stock stay relatively flat / decline
after a big brokerage changes the rating from Neutral to Buy, and
increases the price target from $21 to $23? All the major indices
are up too.
\_ I don't think too many investors care about the ratings. I know
I don't.

6/2 Zinc.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/01/news/newsmakers/penny/index.htm?cnn=yes
\_ 65% of the people think the penny should be eliminated. Yay!
Now if only they can turn dollar bills into loonies and two
dollars into toonies, that'd be cool too.
\_ profit-making scheme:
buy pennies for one cent each
sell them for their zinc
\_ Mark Weller tells us
"Americans want pennies"
Backed by zinc lobby
\_ behold the penny
heavy, useless currency
uses too much zinc
\_ we are galvanized
in our monetary aim
turn all bills to zinc
\_ Modernization
Of legal tender permits
No place for pennies
\_ In the current thread
This haiku does not belong
No mention of zinc

5/14 What is really going on with the $US? Like, what happened on
March 22? I was looking into diversifying currency but volatility
like this is scary.
http://www.x-rates.com/d/ISK/USD/graph30.html
\_ Investing in money is dumb. If you want to invest against the
dollar invest in foreign stocks/funds.
\_ It's about what it was a year ago.
http://www.x-rates.com/d/EUR/USD/hist2005.html
\_ That's because I decided to go to Iceland (really).
\_ Did you turn gay like that gay icelander video?
\_ Can't keep a secret on soda, fuck, who ratted me out!
No, I'll just be visiting for a few days, to the blue
lagoon and the capital.

5/4 Should pennies be taken out of circulation? Pros/cons?
\_ Absolutely. They're a nuisance. Further, dollar bills should
be taken out and replaced with dollar coins. Dollar bills are
very inefficient currency: it costs a lot of money to print them
and replace them since they wear out so fast. Coins last 20+
years.
\_ Who cares?
\_ I think all coins should be replaced with paper money of equal
denominations. Why? Bills are easier to carry in a typical wallet.
Most wallets sold these days don't seem to have a compartment for
coins. Those that do have it usually get torn down eventually with
the metal coins. Besides, paper money is cheaper to print.
coins. Those that do have it usually get torn down eventually due
to friction. Besides, paper money is cheaper to print.
\_ The coin lobby comes from the vending machine industry.
They're the ones that pushed for the dollar coin.
\_ Replace it by living-torg. -John
\_ I think the correct answer is non-physical money. We're at the
point where the cost to build out the infrastructure is less
than the cost of counting coins.
\_ There are too many arguments against exclusively electronic
currency to count. Privacy concerns aside, your argument
assumes universal good infrastructure and similar price and
profit levels for all businesses, disregards the need for
failsafe mechanisms (power outages?) and doesn't consider that
currency isn't just used in its country of origin. -John
\_ Yes. Seriously, 1 cent? Zimbabwe doesn't even bother to make
anything smaller than their $500 bill!
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/02/africa/zimbabwe.php
\_ We should re-value the currency. Well, issue new currency
that is worth 10 times the old. So newDollar = $10old, and
newDime = $1old. This would be too expensive. But it would be
nice. We could go back to 10 cent hamburgers, and a decent
car would cost $2000. The American people would be psychologically
rejuvenized! And the economy would get a kick in the pants from
extra spending. This plan is the best. But sadly it will never
be followed.

4/1 Got this email from Etrade saying that based on my Etrade banking
activities I'm now qualified as a special trader and can trade
stocks for a very low price. "To continue your exclusive status
beyond next quarter, just maintain a $50,000 combined balance in
linked E*TRADE Securities and E*TRADE Bank accounts or execute 30
or more stock or options trades by the end of the quarter."
Thirty stocks? What? Fuck Etrade Bank and fuck Etrade stocks.
\_ Special deals for rich people and day traders. What's the big deal?
\_ And if you want to transfer the money out of your account (i.e.,
close it) E-Trade will happily charge you a $100 transfer fee.
Buyer beware.
\_ I dumped etrade for scottrade/(datek->ameritrade) a few years
ago. etrade is more expensive and service is worse, and they
often screw things up.
\_ E*Trade is better than some other brokerages out there.
E*Trade is not that bad. Also, the offer above says OR.

3/27 Why must interest rates increase by 1/4%? Why don't they just
get it over with and hike it 1/2% at a time, or in the case of
dot-com and real-estate bubble, hike it to the level that they
think it should be more quickly?
split up into three pieces
split up into three pieces and Iran and Turkey is redrawing their
borders:.
\_ They don't have to increase by 1/4%. If they felt it were
appropriate, they could increase it by more (or less, e.g. 1/8%).
The Federal Reserve tries to `herd' (in the herding cats sense of
the word) the economy by adjusting the supply of money. This
requires kid gloves. If they cranked up interest rates by a larger
value (say 1%), it could set of panics in financial markets which
would have serious, likely unpleasant, ripple effects in the
national and global economy. -dans
\_ They also don't raise it all at once, because they need to
keep the market offbalance. If they raised it 1% then the
market would assume that it was all done and act
accordingly. Monetary policy often works best when the
market isn't sure what's coming.
\_ These are not serious answers. I can recommend a
book to you if you would like but I cannot write
a motd entry on how the Fed works.
a motd entry on how the Fed works. Consider this analogy:
if you have 3 passengers in your car and your are coming up
to a red light, eventhough everybody knows you are going
to stop and could brace themeslves for a studden stop,
you deaccelerate slowly. BTW, Milton Friedman also has a
funny analogy about backseat driving and monetary policy.
(google for Lerner, friedman, steering wheel monetary policy)
\_ Au contraire. Market psychology is a very important
reason why rates are not moved all at once. The market
tends to overreact/underreact to major policy moves.
That is *why* they accelerate/decelerate slowly. It's
not just about avoiding shocks to the economy, but
also managing market psychology. If you knew that
tomorrow would be the last of the rate hikes then
you'd behave differently than you would if you weren't
sure of the final outcome. How often is it that
anticipated rate hikes are already priced into the
market? How does that compare to a sudden shift in
policy? Which one moves the markets more and has a
larger effect? Of course, it's not necessarily
desirable to have a large effect (up or down) but
neither is it desirable to have nil effect with policy
moves. Monetary policy has a stronger effect when the
market doesn't expect it.
BTW, this is a good article:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/200405202
\- that is not the only reason they react slowly. large
change in the money supply has real effects, not
just effects based on expectations. it is a long
standing debate whether the fed should play this game
and react with discretion or whether they should
publish a formula and pretty much react in a deterministic
fashion to other variables. the interest rate is not
something announced like the price apple announces
it will sell a computer at. it is the side effect
of open mkt operations [for now i elide issues of
defensive and dynmaic FOMC operations and discount
rate and fed funds rate ... the fed has multiple
competing goals after all, including real factors
like growth and high employment, macro econ factors
like i-rate and inflation/price stability, and then
financial mkt issues: stability of mkt and FX stability
(changes in i-rate in high K mobility world generates
large in/out flows with effects on $ exchange rate ...
not an issue when the fed got rolling, but big issue
today). anyway, psychology and your theory of "rat
expectations" may play a big role in the financial
mkt areas, but the "real effects" are significant too.
BTW, the Fed pretty much has an infinite budget, so
if you want publications from them, the will send you a
lot of interesting stuff for free. the SF Fed may be
a good place for you real estate people to look at.
i dont read the stuff any more, but that is something
the traditionally have good analsysis of. BTW, speaking
of Rat X on sloda, isnt aswan@sloda friends with either
EPRESCOTT or TSARGENT?
\_ I didn't mean to claim that rational expectations
are the sole reason. They are one factor. A
bunch of small rate hikes prove to be more
effective than one hike of the same size. There
are other reasons, of course.

3/21 Okay, why is yahoo finance letting this Robert Kiyosaki guy be their
columnist? His writing riles people which is kind of fun. But then
this guy doesn't know if you owe a debt in US$, and US$ goes down in
value, it's actually good for you, and he still goes to outlets to
buy gold and silver when you can buy GLD: "The outlets that sell gold
and silver I have visited are already low on inventory." Isn't that
kind of embarassing for a supposed financial guru? No wonder people
say he is a con man and he made all his money not through investing,
but from giving investment advice.
http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/richricher/2987?p=1
\_ Because Kiosaki is a financial wizard. Several years ago he
started seminars that encouranged people to flip homes, lots and
lots of homes. He started many investment clubs and spun off
THOUSANDS of investment clubs in the country where people
bought properties for the sole purpose of investment, and those
who followed his advice did very well. To many new millionaires
who followed his advice, he is a hero. People look up to
Kiosaki because he is financial leader, a financial hero, a
financial trendsetter. PS I attended his seminar last year and
he said something to the effect that real estate is still hot in
some areas but we gotta be looking for the next thing. You have
to attend his other seminar to know what that is. Oh yeah, thanks
for reminding me I need to register. -the next millionaire
\_ Fuck you. People like you are the reason people like me buy
land in remote places and stockpile weapons.
\_ but it seems to me that if he's only encouraging people
to get into gold and silver now, he's at best a financial
follower as opposed to a trendsetter.
\_ This kind of thing is usually evidence that the trend is
almost over. I am selling my gold and silver stock.
\_ Suze Orman gave some bad advice based on math that didn't work
once all factors were accounted for. When I tried to call her on
it, I couldn't find any way to contact her. These people are
there for entertainment value, I suppose.
\_ "These people" is rather dismissive, don't you think? There
are certainly good financial columnists out there. It is true
that Yahoo gets paid by you reading the article, not by you
making money, so in some sense the corporation doesn't care if
the advice is good. -tom
\_ It's intended to be dismissive. Giving out bad financial
advice and then making yourself unavailable for criticism
or comment is irresponsible. There are people out there
that consider 'these people' to be gurus and who take
what they say at face value. It doesn't mean all their advice
is bad, of course.
\_ my point is that Suze Orman was irresponsible, not
"financial columnists" as a class of people. The
Motley Fool columnists, in particular, are quite
accountable for their positions. -tom
\_ I don't know if they are accountable, but many
of their recent picks sucked big time.
eg. snda, nile
But I agree. There are some good columnists
(eg. smartmoney columnists ain't bad). I even
think Jim Cramer is pretty good. -op
\_ Remember that it's always possible to do good
analysis and still be wrong, especially in
the short term. -tom

3/6 Where's Swami? We owe Swami a beer.
"Housing Slowdown Ripples Through Economy"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060306/ap_on_bi_ge/housing_slowdown
\_ "There seems to be little concern that a much-touted
housing bubble will lead to a collapse in sales and prices."
\_ We need an equivalent of http://fuckedcompany.com
\_ Which contradicts what a lot of other articles are saying,
but whatever. I recommend http://www.housingbubblecasualty.com
\_ it depends on what the meaning of "collapse" is
\_ "Alex Barron, an analyst in San Francisco for JMP Securities, said
builder stocks have been trading at relatively low multiples of
their earnings since the late 1990s because investors always
believed the strong housing market was too good to last."
Investors kept saying, 'Next year housing will go down,'" Barron
said. "I guess they're finally right."
Tell us something we haven't been predicting (incorrectly) for
a long time now.
\_ Swami is not the "investors" this guys is talking about.
Swami made just one specific prediction: peak in Q4 2005,
nadir in Nov 2007.
\_ Yeah, so he is late with his prediction.
\_ So if I keep saying "oil > $80 barrel next year" every year, do I
get a beer when it finally happens?
\_ No, because you chose a specific number, which might make your
prediction useful to someone. You'd have to say something more
like "oil will be more expensive next year" to really match
the brilliance of dim. -tom
\_ warren buffet gave no specific number or date when he says
he avoids tech, but he still comes out looking pretty
good when the tech bubble bursts. his opinion, if followed,
would've been useful for all those people who lost money.
\_ Warren Buffett has never said to avoid tech. He said
that *he* avoids tech because he doesn't understand it.
(That is, he doesn't understand how to fairly value
tech companies).
And you know, if you bought tech any time from, oh,
1970 up through 1998, or from 2001 on, you're probably
doing pretty well. -tom
\_ yes, during the bubble years, warren buffet says
he avoids tech. that's what I was saying.
\_ What you're saying is a non sequiteur; Buffett
is not making a prediction when he says he avoids
tech. -tom
\_ and I am just pointing out to you that
what you accused dim of doing (not attaching
a "specific number") is just what buffet
does, which is a very reasonable thing to
do. And it is also useful, since if you
take what he is saying into consideration
and reduced your exposure to tech, you would
have emerged from the bubble in a better
shape.
\_ You're not paying attention. Buffett is not
making a prediction, so of course he doesn't
attach a number to his non-existent
prediction. Please find a quote where
Buffett tells *other people* to avoid
tech. Buffett avoided tech in 1990, too,
and if you invested in tech in 1990 you'd
have done better than Buffett. -tom
\_ You're not paying attention. Nobody
claimed that Buffett was making a
prediction. Go reread. Also, you can
chart BRK-A against
Nasdaq since 1990 and you will see BRK-A
leading all the way except for a small
approximately one year period centered
around mid-2000. You should do some
research so you don't continuously
make wrong claims like the above or
like "Median sale prices [of homes]
go down in 4Q *every year*".
around mid-2000.
\_ "Buffett avoided tech in 1990, too,
and if you invested in tech in 1990
you'd have done better than Buffett."
Talking about ill-defined un-specific
claims, the above fits the bill
perfectly.
\_ I didn't make any predictions. I just know the market
has been overvalued for some time now. --dim
\_ is that why it's gone up 40% in the past two years?
\_ you're such an idiot
\_ BTW, I read a Roper poll which said that 78% of
investors feel homes are overvalued. This this swami
those polled feel homes are overvalued, including
72% of those who already own a home. This swami
guy isn't exactly out on a limb here. --dim

2/28 New record of U.S. investment in foreign stock exchanges
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-foreign28feb28,0,5874122.story
\_ welcome to the global economy.
\_ Trading deficit of $900 billion in 2006 means that foreigners will
have to buy up all of our assets unless they actually believe we
intend to actually pay back our debts.
\_ You're confusing the national debt and deficit with the trade
deficit. Trade deficits do not automatically equal the U.S.
owing foreigners money.

2/28 What's a good "next step up" from high-yield (4-5%) savings accounts
if I want something to invest, say, $50k in and still keep it fairly
liquid and still have little to no risk (i.e. I'm OK with !FDIC if
it's a biggish institution and not too likely to fold). By "fairly
liquid" I mean no more than a year lock-in.
\_ I have some I-bonds that are pulling in 6-7% a year. I bought
those a few years ago though, and I think they've been dropping
the yield in recent years.
the yield in recent years. Oh, and they're fed tax free too.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/ibonds_glance.htm
\_ Don't you have to pay taxes when they adjust the principal?
\_ Woops. I got it the other way around. No state tax,
and fed tax deferred until either bond redeemed or
annually--your choice--and not on adjusting the principal.
\_ No, that is for TIPS.
\_ I bonds deduct 3 months interest if you sell before 5 years,
so that's a minus for the op since he wants less than 1 year
lock-in.
\_ probably more risk than you would like but I like FAX (asian bonds
close end fund) recommended by Bill Gross (king of bonds). It
yields 6.87% and is currently 4.68% below its net asset value.
\_ 6.87 taxable w/ risk vs. 6.73 state-tax free no-risk (I Bond)..
meh. What does "4.68% below..." mean?
\_ well, I Bond yield is inflation dependent and may go down,
so it is not risk free. 4.68% below nav means that the
fund is trading at a value that is 4.68% below the total
value of the bonds it holds. of course FAX also has
exchange rates risk. you should probably only buy it
if you think the dollar is going to fall, or you want
to diversify your currency risks. I personally think
the dollar will fall, so I especially like FAX. In the
scenario that FAX returns to NAV, and dollar falls, I
could get 15% return.
- I bond holder who suggested I bonds on the motd
a few months ago.
\_ I'm a big fan of FAX too. I'm curious though, where are you
getting the "*currently* 4.68% below its net asset value"?
I know they mention it periodically, but is there some way
to check at any given point (they have way too many holdings
to calculate it yourself) -crebbs
\_ http://www.etfconnect.com it's down to 4.35% now. I recently
found out that IFN is 30% above NAV. I am going to sell
IFN and get MINDX or maybe IBN (ICICI) to stay exposed
to India. IIF is also 15-20% above NAV so it's not much
help.
\_ Funny, I was just yesterday showing a buddy of mine
a comment that IFN was 30% over NAV and that he should
short it. How do they manage a 9% dividend at that
pemium? are they really holding assest that pay well
over 9% divedends on average?? Anyway, thanks for the
over 9% dividends on average?? Anyway, thanks for the
link. Email me and tell me who you are if you don't
mind being bugged once in a while about this kind of
thing. -crebbs
\_ feel free. good for me to have someone to bounce
one's investment ideas off too. I have a rather
patchy record with shorting. I recently tried
shorting GM; it promptly appreciated 20% but
later fell back, so I am now even. Do you think
I should be glad I didn't lose money and run, or
keep the short? - ecchang
\_I would be terrified of shorting GM. The funds
seem to be sticking with them. The gubmnt could
come to their rescue (again). Despite their
dire straights and massive debt, I think that's
a scary play. But I pretty much only take
short positions in combo with long. For exmple
I shorted 3dfx and went long with NVDA back in
the day. </brag> -crebbs
\_ my thinking with regard to GM is that there
is something fundamentally wrong with GM
that cannot be fixed without going into
bankruptcy. yes there may be short term
gains but it won't last. question is
whether one can hold through those gains.
But you may be right, the risks are pretty
high, especially given how far GM has
fallen already.
NVDA is another of my bad shorts. I shorted
it around 21 and it went up to 26 at which
point, I gave up. After I gave up, it
dropped all the way to 10. This was in
mid 2004, I think, when ATI is kicking
NVDA's butt when NVDA is having production
and heat issues with their chips. What's
worse is that I then missed NVDA's runup
from 10 to the current 48. ugh!
- ecchang
\_ How about T-Bills? If I read this right, you can go in for a
month and make > 4% state-tax free? Am I reading that wrong?
What's the catch? -op

2/24 Another case of rich fat cats raping your average Americans.
Unregulated free market capitalism at its best!:
http://tinyurl.com/zo2qq (buyout firms raping hardworking
americans)
\_ You know, it's really old news when Hollywood has made films about
it 10 years ago.
\_ I applaud Forbes magazine for standing up to their corporate
masters. I think the WSJ news section had a similar article
a few weeks ago. There was probably an accompanying rant
in the WSJ editorial page about the poor oppressed
private equity firm. Anyway it's just another reason
I welcome our new financial robotic overlords.
\_ Hey smartass, this is a new and bigger wave.
\_ Don't be an idiot. This is a new and bigger wave.
And the guys in the 80s don't gut the companies they
acquire, put all the money in their pockets, and let
the companies go backrupt, screwing the employess and
stealing from the creditors. This is outright
thievery. Articles condemning it must be widely
read, and until the problem is fixed, we must continue
to pursue it and not let the crooks get away with it,
just like we don't let crooks like Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling
and Bernard Ebbers get away. Are you related to one of
these crooks yourself?
the companies go backrupt.
\_ Ken Lay et al were found through the judicial process to
have broken laws. If these buy out firms have acted
illegally, then by all means they should be prosecuted.
So has any of these firms been charged for their misdeeds?
\_ Dividend recap schemes are pretty old news too. Here's
a BofA article about it http://csua.org/u/f3b from a
couple years ago.
\_ June 2004? that's relatively recent.
\_ June 2004? that's relatively recent. But what has
dividend recap got to do with the discussion above?

2/21 "The official poverty level is $19,307 for a family of four, $12,334
for a family of two. But the calculation includes only cash income
before deductions for taxes. It excludes capital gains and it does not
take into account accumulated wealth or assets, such as a home."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/21/politics/main1331693.shtml
\_ it depends on what the meaning of "poor" is
"the bureau said the rate might be as high as 19.4 percent, or as
low as 8.3 percent, depending on how income and basic living costs
were defined"

2/17 George Soros is a loser. He made big money just one time but has
made countless mistakes afterwards. Anyways, he predicts
a huge recession in 2007 that'll make the late 80s
recession look tame. Let's see if he's wrong. Again.
\_ Let's assume he's right. What does he want us to do? What
can we do? What's the best way to profit?
\_ Buy land with access to fresh water, and lots of guns.
\_ short GOOG!!! short everything!!1!
\_ He wants you to take your money out of the US to make it a
self fulfilling prophecy so he can make another few billion
in exchange for providing no return value to the world.
\_ If you sell all your stocks and buy I-Bonds or something
like that, you should be able to ride it out fine.
\_ nah soros made big money quite a few times.

2/14 Poll: favorite stock that you own. Must have market cap > $200Mil:
(ETFs okay):
\_ GOOG: .
\_ CRXL: .
\_ MRVL, MSPD
\_ WAG: .
\_ EFII: .
\_ AAPL: .
\_ EWZ: .
\_ AMD: .
\_ CSCO: .
\_ Yay, its back to 1999. Can we at least wait for the housing bubble
to burst before ushering in the next stock one?
\_ if you hate bubbles, you can always do the hedge fund long short
market neutral thing.
\_ if you hate bubbles, you can always try the hedge fund long short
market neutral strategy.

2/6 My brother got married recently and they insisted they didn't want
anything and refused to register anywhere. Obviously I have to get
something, but since they're poor the most practical thing would be
cash. If I have lots of disposable income and make $X/yr, what is a
good amount for a wedding present?
\_ make an Indecent proposal.
\_ $X
\_ Not knowing any of you, I'd say a few hundred bucks. Don't shame
them by giving a large amount. By not accepting anything they're
saying to the world, "This is true love, we're not getting married
to scam you out of some gifts"
\_ agree. couple hundred bucks is good enough. anything more than
that is going to be too offensive... unless you sure he doesn't
mind.
\_ how poor are they? i'm sure there's something that he could use,
be it a DSL subscription, or a computer, or porn DVDs (being a
computer nerd, it makes sense to get him those things) or even
something like repairs for his beat up corolla. That way, you're
not giving him charity (which he already said he doesn't want),
you're thinking about him (and his wife, i guess). you could even
get him something like a Safeway gift card, and say it's because
you didn't know what kind champagne he liked.
\_ Miss Manners says that's it's rude to tell people that you don't
want gifts; it's the giver's choice what to give. If your
brother wants to be insulted at generosity, that's his problem.
-tom
\_ Who cares about MM? What does Emily Post have to say?
\_ Ironic that you'd be a MM reader.
\_ Have you read Miss Manners at all? She does the best
smack-downs of any columnist this side of Savage Love. -tom
\_ Yes, I have. As I said. Ironic.
\_ give them stock or a savings bond. i got the latter several
times as a kid and it's good karma.
\_ A small quantity of stock is just a pain in the as for
somebody who isnt an invester. Just give cash if you are
somebody who isnt an investor. Just give cash if you are
thinking this route or a gift certificate to Amazon.
In fact just ignore all the other advice except maybe the
trip if you have a good idea there and get them Amazon.
\_ that makes a lot of sense. i like amazon certificates. -pp
\- yes i know that. i get an AMAZONG CREDIT for all
my associate who have new children.
\_ A good gift is a trip somewhere. Where are they honeymooning?
\_ If they're serious about not receiving gifts and you're serious
about giving, you can always donate money to some reasonable
charity in their name.
\_ give them stock or something. i never did something like that,
but it sounds like it'd work great if i were into that. savings
bonds are for kids, but might be appropriate if you think they're
addiction-prone or won't know how to sell stock. they'll probably
realize they can take you out for a nice dinner if they ever sell.
\_ I got married 6 months ago and suggested people do this. -bz
\_ How about just taking your brother out, telling him over a beer
that you'd like to do something nice for them (it is possible to
tell someone that you are financially well off and would like to
share in a non-arrogant way) and just ask him straight-out in
private what he'd like? And Miss Manners can bite my ass. -John
\_ He lives 300 miles away, makes himself difficult to contact,
and has been delicately asked this a few times already. -op
\_ Just a thought -- if they intend to procreate, and
depending on how much you want to spend, consider opening
a trust fund (cash, bonds, whatever) for the kid. -John
\_ A few casino chips
\_ Toaster!

2/1 Hello, I used to have Fidelity 401K when I worked at this company.
The plan had about 20 not so spectacular mutual funds. I'm now
working at a place where they use 403B and have over 100 mutual
funds... also using Fidelity. I'm tempted to transfer ALL of
the 401K over to my new 403B plan which includes specific foreign,
utility, and energy mutual funds. Is this a good/bad idea?
Any advice? ok thx.
\- helo, pp is not me. ok tnx.
\_ you can transfer to an IRA from a brokerage. But be careful
to do it correctly or you will get a tax hit. Fidelity
can convert it to a regular IRA where you can choose any
funds that Fidelity sells.
\_ You can transfer to any brokerage. Make sure you do a
direct transfer where the money goes directly from the
401k to the brokerage, or you may get a tax hit like
the above poster mentioned. Money I manage myself
consistently beat the meagre selections my 401k offers
by 20 percentage points, so I couldn't wait to transfer
the money out everytime I change job, which unfortunately
hasn't been very often.
\_ My company's 401K plan has a "fund" that lets individuals choose
what to invest on with their money in the accounts. You can
short GOOG or buy bonds or whatever.
\_ You usually cannot short or buy derivatives in a
retirement account. I don't know any brokerages that
allow this.
\_ <DEAD>Brownco.com<DEAD> allowed you to sell covered calls in IRA 5
yrs ago when I was investigating. --oj
\_ They don't now.

1/31 http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060131/cm_usatoday/greenspansrecordnotsorosy
Like I said, fuck Greenspan.
\_ Jim Bunning? You must not have been paying attention to his
re-election. Check out http://csua.org/u/euy [Wapo]. I wouldn't
use him as an authority if I were you.
\_ He is responsible for the stock market bubble, soaring
home prices and record consumer debt because he was to quick
to raise rates?
\_ Greedy people with too much money and not enough brains are
responsible for the stock bubble. Consumer debt is the fault of
consumers (shocking, eh?) while rising home prices are the end
result of many factors coming together such as the drop in the
market, speculation, low rates, demographics, green lining, and
probably a bunch of other things.
\_ While consumer debt is the fault of consumers, yes, there are
plenty of enablers out there. Not giving beer to alcoholics
seems like a straightforward idea. How about not extending
easy credit to the irresponsible?
\_ Yeah, prohibition sure worked out great. And so's that
"war on drugs".

1/26 New report looks at where the growth in incomes of high-income
families has outpaced that of middle- and low-income households.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/25/news/economy/income_gap
\_ The rich get richer faster than the middle and lower classes.
And?
\_ The aggregation of wealth at the top is driving the middle
class into the working poor category.
\_ Aggregation? No. Middle class people making less compared
to cost of living (housing and medical in particular)
combined with a chronic inability to stop spending money
on crap they don't need drives down middle class real
adjusted worth. It can't last and it isn't surprising.

1/20 http://biz.yahoo.com/tm/060117/13793.html
4/10 Playboy models outperform 11705/11739 equity mutual fund
managers for picking out better stocks.
\_ All that says is that the companies that Playboy models know are
doing well at the moment. Let's continue the experiment for 10 years
and see who's ahead. (Not that I'm a fan of fund managers, but the
conclusions here are silly.)
\_ Mutual fund managers are not free to choose whatever companies they
think will do best. Fund manager can only choose companies within
the fund's sector. A real estate fund can't buy MSFT, for example.
The playboy models don't have this limitation.
\_ I didn't know there are so many PB models that aren't blonde.
The Playboy models don't have this limitation.
\_ If you thought about this a little bit, you'd realize how silly
this theory is.
\_ Care to explain?
\_ From a description of Magellan's strategy:
"Normally invests primarily in common stocks of domestic
and foreign issuers. Invests in either 'growth' stocks or
'value' stocks or both." I guess the bunnies can invest
in non-growth, over-priced stocks and Magellan might not.
Even not knowing any specific example, you should realize
that if picking whatever from wherever is a superior way to
invest, then there would be funds to exploit that.
\_ Morningstar categorizes FMAGX as large blend. "While
the investment objective stated in a fund's prospectus
may or may not reflect how the fund actually invests,
the Morningstar category is assigned based on the
underlying securities in each portfolio."
\_ The category is descriptive rather prescriptive,
\_ The category is descriptive rather than prescriptive,
which is exactly what Morningstar said.
\_ Even not knowing any specific example, you should
realize that if the Playboy models really can do better
than the mutual fund managers out there, they would all
become mutual fund managers.
\_ Yes. However, the original claim was not that the
bunnies were necessarily better pickers but that
they had more freedom in choosing stocks. Therefore,
your point, while valid, does not apply. Whereas
showing that non-specifically targeted mutual funds
should and do exist does apply.
\_ I didn't know there are so many PB models that aren't blond.
\_ I don't think the all of the fund managers of the 11739 funds have
\_ Almost none of them are. Hair dye.
\_ I guess dyeing blond doesn't make one stupid, unlike natural
blond.
\_ I don't think all of the fund managers of the 11739 funds have
Harvard MBAs.
\_ Long-term everyone reverts to the mean, unless you have
insider information.
\_ The fund contestants are "all funds listed on Morningstar". How
are the model contestands picked?

1/10 http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=SNROF.PK
Hello Kitty, Hello Profit!
\_ What does "PK" in ticker symbols stand for? I notice that when
companies go down, their ticker symbols are appended with ".PK".
\_ That means they're traded on "the pink sheets"; not listed on
a major exchange. -tom
\_ Hmm, in Cantonese "PK" stands for "Poke Kai" which is a much
better description of those companies. :-)))

1/10 dim-- 19 floor high rise building in the middle of the city,
starting price: $1.5 mil. All sold out before they're even
finished: http://www.thecalifornianonwilshire.com Here's a
data point for you. All the 1 bdrm high-rise condos in this area
start at $600K. Still think the city is full of poor people?
\_ Or just go to Miami and drive up and down the coast. All
those condos.
\_ Which city in "Still think the city is full of poor people?" are you
talking about?
\_ which city has a notable street called wilshire?
\_ That's my point. The "city" in the housing thread below
refers to SF.
refers to SF. -- PP
\_ Someone who honestly does not know that there are more
rich people than poor in San Francisco is not worth having
a discussion with.
\_ Really? Here's the household income breakdown
according to the 2000 Census:
$10K- 9.8%
$10K-$14.9K 5.0%
$15K-$24.9K 8.5%
$100K-$149.9K 13.2%
$150K-$199.9K 5.3%
$200K+ 6.1%
What's your definition for rich and poor? It's not
at all obvious to me there are more rich than poor
in San Francisco (I'm not sure $100K is really rich
here, but $25K is pretty damn poor). You might also
see http://www.sfbg.com/News/34/34/34stat.html
\_ The median income for a household in the city
is $55,221, and the median income for a family
is $63,545 one of the highest in the United States
at 15th place overall and 3rd in a single large city.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%2C_California
74k in poverty: http://tinyurl.com/a3ld4
By your own (outdated) numbers, 280k making
twice the national median, 100k making 3X.
By your own (outdated) numbers, 180k making
twice the national median, 82k making 3X.
\_ Sorry bub, but the median is a terrible measure
for the point you're trying to make (which, I
have to admit is pretty darned stupid). Train
harder, grasshopper.
\_ Yes, if the city is called thecalifornianonwilshire, then it has
more rich people than poor.
\_ Wilshire and a couple blocks east of Westwood Blvd is a prime
location, not like the overpriced downtown lofts
-long-time L.A. resident
more rich people than poor. If you are living in the County of
Los Angeles, then ~35% of the households make less than $30K and
~18% make more than $100K. Now, I'm guessing most of the $100K
income types are not buying those $1.5M condos. ~10% make $150K
or more. Maybe that's the target demographic.
\_ Yes, the city is full of poor people. Then again, so is the
country. If anything, this data point proves my point, which is
that the quality of living in the city sucks unless you are a
multi-millionaire. $600K for a one bedroom condo?! Do you want
to lookup how much a house with a backyard, a FDR, and a family
room costs in the same area? Which do more people desire based
on that?
\_ yes I looked up. All the single family homes in the area
start at $1.25 mil. This is an area south of Belair, west
of Beverely Hills, and east of Brentwood. By the way
they're all old houses that were built in the 30s and 40s,
and even the $1.25 mil homes look crappy.
\_ There are some of us who don't want a huge house, and want the
things you can only get by living in the city. Why can't you
just accept this? I'm not the person attacking the 'burbs or
the people that live in them, by the way.
\_ Which is why this whole "debate" is retarded. It seems to me
that part of the point of having money is doing whatever the
hell you want. For some people that's 10 acres of giant
plastic gazebos, and for some people that's a penthouse
overlooking central park--but the implication that having
money somehow implies a specific lifestyle and that the
money somehow implies a specifici lifestyle and that the
only reason you'd do anything different is that you can't
afford it is just dumb.
\_ I have no problem accepting that people have different
preferences. What I have a problem with is the idea that
'rich' people prefer the city and that 'suburban' people
are all putzes with no sense. However, whether you live
in the city or the suburbs, a single family residence is
more attractive to more people than a condo or apartment
is. Key here: more != all.
\_ Uh, you are twisting things 100% from the original
assestions that started the debate. Some suburbanite
claimed that no one preferred high density living
and that everyone wanted a large suburban home.
Remember this?
\_ Can you read? Most people prefer a SFR to
high-density housing, even in the cities. You can
confirm this by comparing relative prices.
"It you stepped back from the class warfare language and pre-judgement
of those with a life style you can't afford, you'd soon realise
that "living" in a 650 square foot apartment isn't living. You
look at something you might never be able to afford and call it
irrational. People who have it can't imagine how you could stand
to live in a rat hole apartment. High density housing sucks to
live in and going skiing a few times a year or having a nice park
nearby doesn't make up for it."

1/8 Dear mature home owners, maybe I'm young and stupid, but I want
to know some of the justifications for your irrational needs.
What exactly is the purpose of a formal dining room? My mom has
\_ Some of us have a lot of cocktail & dinner parties. -John
a 4500 sq ft house and the formal dining room has been
used twice in an entire decade. Secondly, what is the purpose of
having a separate living room used for meeting guests and a
family room? My mom's living room is rarely used and is there
mostly for looks-- her guests usually go directly to the family
room since it has a nice TV and is closer to the kitchen. Lastly,
what exactly is the purpose of a large backyard with lots of
grass when it is often used less than once a month?
\_ I can tell you that my sister spent about $60,000 on her fancy
front yard with gazeebo, statue, malibu lights, waterfountain,
and other things. One time I went to her backyard and found
moldy, deformed boxes which were once malibu light boxes
where the workers left them a few months ago. I asked her about
them and she said she hadn't noticed them. The only time
she'd go to the backyard was when she had guests, so she
could show off her fancy McBackyard. Oh and by the way
she has a 4 bedroom McMansion and the only people living
in it is... her. Suburbia is a total waste of land and
resources, but as you already know, people are stupid.
\_ Geez man, she lives in a 4500sq ft house. Of course there's a
lot of wasted space. You could comfortably house 3 families in
that much space. As the above poster says, it's all just
conspicuous consumption. -jrleek
\_ A formal dining room is useful if you throw a lot of dinner parties
or have old-fashioned sit down dinners as a family. Otherwise it's
just for show.
\_ It's also good if you have big multiplayer board games.
\_ Or have poker games with lots of people.
\_ I always thought the formal dining is there so you can sell your
house to people who want a formal dining room. Me, I converted
mine into an office, and it works great. I'll deconvert back into
a dining room when I sell. The backyard is there for your kids.
In fact, a friend is moving specifically for a larger backyard so
his kids can have more play room. The larger yard is also great
for more buffer space between you and your neighbors.
\_ These are artifacts of older housing concepts. Formal dining rooms
just used to be the room you ate in, before the invention of the
breakfast nook. Living rooms were styled after parlors and located
in the front of the house to avoid tramping through a cluttered
house, while family rooms were invented for the "back of the house".
The more informal family and social life became and the less people
entertained, the less need for these distictions. Large backyards
were important because of a lack of green space (parks), to allow
for entertaining, and to boost the ego. Land is still land.
\_ It is simple: having nice things and lots of space gives people a
warm n fuzzy feeling. There is nothing irrational about it. If
you stepped back from the class warfare language and pre-judgement
of those with a life style you can't afford, you'd soon realise
that "living" in a 650 square foot apartment isn't living. You
look at something you might never be able to afford and call it
irrational. People who have it can't imagine how you could stand
to live in a rat hole apartment. High density housing sucks to
live in and going skiing a few times a year or having a nice park
nearby doesn't make up for it.
\_ I could afford to live in a large house in the suburbs or a
smaller condo in the city and I chose the city. I could even
afford a larger place in San Francisco if I wanted it, but I
don't. Not even's concept of self worth is tied up in their
over consumption. I prefer high density housing and so do
many people. Get off your high horse.
\_ I think the person on the high horse is the OP. I like
having a FDR and a large back yard. I go out in the yard
every single day, because I like to garden. When I
entertain, I either entertain outside or in my FDR and
living room. The family room is upstairs and is sort of
a 'junk room' I don't invite guests to. In short, just
because a few people are putzes with more space than they
use doesn't mean everyone choosing a house over high-density
living is. I think 4500 square feet is excessive, but
then I couldn't afford that if I took out 3 mortgages.
\_ I never said anything about self worth. Don't project. It
is entirely about personal space and comfort for those who
have. I'm glad you have chosen to pay more to get less in
the city. That is a wise investment. Actually, most of the
people in high density housing are the poor. I wouldn't
really call being poor a "choice" they made.
\_ Tell all the people living in South Beach, Telegraph
Hill, Nob Hill and Russian Hill that they are poor.
In most of the world the most desirable places to
live are in the city center, where density allows for
all the advantages of urban living. And is your
"that is a wise investment" line intended to be
sarcasm? It is hard to tell over ascii whether you
are being serious or not.
\_ Well, the pp said "most of the people in high density
housing are the poor". IOW, we're counting heads here.
So, in SF, are there more people in expensive areas
like Nob Hill or in poor areas like the Tenderloin?
Are there more expensive neighborhoods or poor
neighboorhoods? Are there more rich people or poor
people? They can pack a lot of people
into projects, and it'll take a large area of luxe
apts and such to balance the head count. - !pp
\_ Rich people live in spacious penthouses in the
middle of the city, not shitty ratholes. Then they
fly out to the Hamptons or Aspen or whatever on
the weekends to unwind. While Manhattan is
expensive, the *average* apartment in Manhattan is
a dump - unless you are rich, of course.
\_ I grew up in a big city where 95% of the people lived in
apartments, so I am used to it Living in a big house would
be nice but living beyond my needs seems wasteful. I finally
bought a townhouse just so I can host my church fellowship
gatherings at my place. Other friends have bigger houses,
but they are out of the way, whereas my place is centrally
located so everyone can come without travelling too far.
- yet another poster
\_ You could afford more if you weren't tithing your 10%
\_ sure. I had not been tithing a full pre-tax 10%
before last year. Then I decided to start doing it
early last year after quite a bit of struggling, and
within 2 months, my stocks did so well that the
capital gains would be enough to cover 3 full years
of tithing. Just goes to show how small we are and
how great God is. We tithe because we should, not
because God would bless us because of it, but in
regard to tithing, Bible does says: "Test me in this,
and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of
heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will
not have room enough for it." Malachi 3:8-12
http://tinyurl.com/bz5d4
Note that I am not saying that Christians have to
offer 10% pre-tax. It's not a matter of following
a rule, or of judging people based on that. It's
a matter of your heart and love of the Lord, and
love of your brothers and sisters and fellow men.
\_ I think you are a false Mormon. Jesus quite clearly
teaches in the Bible that your faith in God has
nothing to do with your material wealth. Unless
the book of Moroni has a few extra chapters not
being shared with the class.
\_ I am not a Mormon.
\_ So, you came into extra money and didn't tithe on that?
naughty boy.
\_ Like I said, it's not a matter of following
rules. For capital gains, for me, since it's
for generating an income post-retirement,
I will just continue tithing that income
when I retire, and leave 10% of what I have
when I die.
\_ Why don't you tithe it to me next year, and cut out
the wasteful middlemen?
\_ You are funny, but I don't think you have
a need for it.
\_ Ever checked out the LDS Church balance sheets?
I can assure you I need it a lot more than it
does. I'd even share it with some other sodans.
\_ they make those public?
\_ I was glib... estimated assets are...
large. ($tens of billions)
\_ if you want some, just join their church.
\_ My church is a small Lutheran church.
\_ You started tithing and your stocks went up. Do you
actually think those are related? Just think of how many
people God would be hurting if he made _your_ stocks go
up to reward you.
\_ Why would my stocks going up necessarily hurt
anyone. The stock that went up most is doing
vaccine and antibodies production research for
diseases like flu, ebola, malaria, west nile,
rabies, etc.
\_ I don't think that the presence of a dining room in most homes
is that controversial. I, for one, strongly believe that meals
should be normally consumed in the company of your relatives at
a dining table and not in the living room or in the bedroom in
front of TV. In many homes, the dining room is just an extension
of either the kitchen or the living room which is fine. However,
having separate family and living rooms seems to be less common
(and less useful) indeed.

1/6 We survived the great bear market of 2000-2002. Congratulations.
\_ and by the skin of our teeth. Bears are scary!
\_ What do you mean by survived? My previous company went under in
2001.
\_ though you suffered, you are still here, healthy, and
earning a decent income (I hope).
\_ nope, took a pay cut to find a job in 2002. Gonna change
jobs soon though.
\_ Prepare for the great housing collapse of 2006-8.
\_ I already have lawnchairs and a case of beer, if that's what
you mean. I intend to bask in shadenfreude.
you mean. I intend to bask in schadenfreude.
\_ didn't they say they were going to stop increasing interest
rates soon?
\_ Greenspam has been making noise about 1 more increase and
then seeing what happens. In other news, the housing bust
is here. In the last quarter the rate of increase in the
price of housing crashed down to 6%.
\_ Greenspan retired. And, uh, the rate of increase slowing
to 6% annually isn't exactly a bust. -tom
\_ Uh, the rate of increase slowing to 6% annually isn't
exactly a bust. -tom
\_ Sarcasm detectors... ACTIVATE!